KCRag Forum

"Kansas City: A first class town, with a third-rate newspaper!"

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Growing up the Star was just 2 sections, the news in one and sports, ads, comics in the other.

And there was probably as much news on the front page as in 4 or 5 pages today.  

McClatchy is ruining this paper and any chance of it surviving the economic downturn with any sort of the readership it did have.

I’m about done with them myself, they are forcing people to go online and the online version sucks.  I have subscribed to the Star since I was a freshman in College, so if they are running people like me off, It’s no wonder the people that could take it or leave it are leaving it in droves.

I don’t get the Wall Street Journal, but I’m thinking about it.

USA Today or the Wall Street Journal and the KC Business Journal.  If the WSJ just opened a small office in every major market and covered basic local news/sports/business and added a local section to their national paper, they would kill most locals, especially the Star which has really turned in a total joke in the past couple of years.

The Star is trashing itself.  There has to be a way to convert that press building into an aquarium

^Agreed.  I've been a Star subscriber since I moved to KC, but my subscription expires this month and I will not be renewing.  The product is a shell of it's former self, prices have gone up, and I can get all the local content online for free.  The Star has zero chance of long term success with this recipie.  Something has to change. 

GRID wrote: McClatchy is ruining this paper and any chance of it surviving the economic downturn with any sort of the readership it did have.

The paper already sucked because it had no competition and a very stale editorial take. 

Think about it...Hearne Christopher, Barbara "We've done enough for downtown" Shelley, lame ass Hendricks with his hands down Funkhouser's pants, Steve Penn, Jenee. Are you kidding? Making people pay to read their bs? Complacency by definition... 

I agree that it will probably suck more, but it wasn't good to begin with. In this case, nothing may be better than something. Journalists need to just find new outlets online.

lock+load wrote: ^Agreed.  I've been a Star subscriber since I moved to KC, but my subscription expires this month and I will not be renewing.  The product is a shell of it's former self, prices have gone up, and I can get all the local content online for free.  The Star has zero chance of long term success with this recipie.  Something has to change. 

I almost canceled my subscription the other day when I saw Britney Spears on the front page above the fold. I want news, not crap.

More bad news. Another round of layoffs at McClatchy in June. Company is on the verge of violating debt covenants.

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... fs-at.html

Maybe they should sell off some of their crossroads surface lot acreage to raise cash.  Sounds like they have a lot less need for employee parking. 

They need to declare bankruptcy and split the company up.  Management is ruining the papers to save the company.  Get the papers out from under the debt and they might have a chance. 

lock+load wrote: They need to declare bankruptcy and split the company up.  Management is ruining the papers to save the company.  Get the papers out from under the debt and they might have a chance. 

Yup.  The Star would be relatively OK on it's own or with a different owner.  The problem is that the corporate parent has a crushing debt and is forcing the newspapers to cut costs to free up money to pay that debt.

The Star is still profitable.  It was one of the most profitable in the Knight-Ridder chain before McClatchy bought it, and still turning a profit even in the recession.  If it wasn't for a poorly run corporate parent, the Star would not be laying people off, or not nearly as many people.

^ Yeah, but you'd have to think that problems in other markets are a sign of things to come here in the heartland.  The Star is probably still showing a profit because we have an older, less tech savvy population that still uses the print media for advertising, classified, obituaries, etc.  Places like San Francisco, which recently lost it's paper, will have more residents who will use Craigslist, online media, etc.  It's a dead model that just hasn't played out here in the midwest.  It's better to cut now even though the paper is showing profits in the short term.

beautyfromashes wrote: It's a dead model that just hasn't played out here in the midwest.  It's better to cut now even though the paper is showing profits in the short term.

The business model may be dead, but the product isn't.  No one else produces the same material, online or elsewhere.  Cutting isn't the answer.  Finding a way to generate revenue from their unique product is.

beautyfromashes wrote: ^ Yeah, but you'd have to think that problems in other markets are a sign of things to come here in the heartland.  The Star is probably still showing a profit because we have an older, less tech savvy population that still uses the print media for advertising, classified, obituaries, etc. 

KC actually ranks pretty high for technology adoption.  Your stereotype portraying us as abacus-using rubes is pretty far-fetched.

beautyfromashes wrote:Places like San Francisco, which recently lost it's paper

Which paper are referring to?  The Chronicle, Examiner, and Mercurty-News are all still in business.

lock+load wrote: Finding a way to generate revenue from their unique product is.

Why? Why is it necessary to keep an aging product alive, especially when it can be replaced by digital media that doesn't require paper production and all the harmful environmental effects, doesn't produce physical pollution in the city and excess trash for landfills and is much less efficient for information searching?  Is it an emotional decision?

dangerboy wrote: Which paper are referring to?  The Chronicle, Examiner, and Mercurty-News are all still in business.

Sorry, I thought I read that one of the San Fran papers were closing or about to close.  Not sure which one, perhaps I was thinking of Seattle.

beautyfromashes wrote: Why? Why is it necessary to keep an aging product alive, especially when it can be replaced by digital media that doesn't require paper production and all the harmful environmental effects, doesn't produce physical pollution in the city and excess trash for landfills and is much less efficient for information searching?  Is it an emotional decision?

No one said keep the printed product alive.  Their unique product is the local news they report. No one online is filling the voild left when the Star cuts 100s of local reporters.

Unfortunately, neither the Star nor any other paper has figured out how to make money with their online product.  They need to figure it out fast, or there isn't going to be anything left to sell.

Exactly.  They need to "find a way to make money from their unique product", that being their news delivery service through the internet.  Less and less people will be paying for a paper subscription.  Those who love the printed paper don't really want to admit this, but, print word has processed from cash cow to grade C hamburger.  The future will be internet, high speed handhelds, wireless Kindles, digital paper, etc.

lock+load wrote: Unfortunately, neither the Star nor any other paper has figured out how to make money with their online product.  They need to figure it out fast, or there isn't going to be anything left to sell.

Yeah, McClatchy is going to earn a mere $200 million from digital this year, so I guess they're a long way from figuring it out.

Not trying to argue, but to point out a lot of the conceptions about newspapers are incorrect. For a lot of people - a whole lot - life doesn't revolve around the Internet. There's still a lot of money to be made from print. To think the Tony Botellos of the world are right about everything is just dead wrong (The Star is just a big, easy target to him and it's easier to say "it's dying" than offer anything constructive). I picked up a copy of The Pitch the other day and it's pretty much a shadow of its former self in content and advertising. And you know what's really hurting The Pitch? No. Shit. (laugh all you want at that one because I sure do)

Also, please: take everything you read on McClatchy Watch with a grain of bitter, angry salt. It's written by a bitter, angry man who's lost his sense of fairness and objectivity.

dangerboy wrote: The Star is still profitable.  It was one of the most profitable in the Knight-Ridder chain before McClatchy bought it, and still turning a profit even in the recession.  If it wasn't for a poorly run corporate parent, the Star would not be laying people off, or not nearly as many people.

Spot on once again, dangerboy.

My life pretty much revolves around the internet.

Yet, I still want a hard copy of the paper daily.

GRID wrote: My life pretty much revolves around the internet.

Yet, I still want a hard copy of the paper daily.

You are not alone, in that many people love paper especially the young ones.  My son sells college textbooks for a large publisher.  I asked him about the switch to electronic versions of textbooks since the current college goers grew up with computers.  Yes, electronic versions of many books are available but many student still prefer to carry around the heavy books when given a choice.