KCRag Forum

Maitre D wrote: SF Chronicle to shut down if no buyer found.   That's the one that gets me.  12th largest US paper cant' make it?

I think we'll see the USA Today being the only damn paper. With the business model for all of these papers...it's no wonder they're failing. The number of people that "get the paper" is shrinking by the day. Why would you if you can read it online for free? Unless you like the feeling of getting the paper.

NDTeve wrote: Why would you if you can read it online for free?

Giving away their product for free is going to have to change.  It isn't working, and before long, they aren't going to have anything left worth sellinf OR giving away.  What the Star does is not cheap, and they shouldn't be giving it away for free.  There is no other source in Kansas City that covers even 10% of what the Star does. 

lock+load wrote: Giving away their product for free is going to have to change.  It isn't working, and before long, they aren't going to have anything left worth sellinf OR giving away.  What the Star does is not cheap, and they shouldn't be giving it away for free.  There is no other source in Kansas City that covers even 10% of what the Star does. 

I think that is a zero sum game - if you start charging for online news, there will always be someone willing to charge less and eventually give it away free for you to come look at their ads.  Plus, the only thing the Star has to distinguish itself from thousands of other free online news sources is local coverage - what percentage of readers would forgo reading local coverage if you charged for it?  Are the TV stations going to start charging for their news sites?  If not, why would I pay any sort of significant subscription to kansascity.com when I can get local news for free at the TV sites?

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I think that is a zero sum game - if you start charging for online news, there will always be someone willing to charge less and eventually give it away free for you to come look at their ads.   Plus, the only thing the Star has to distinguish itself from thousands of other free online news sources is local coverage - what percentage of readers would forgo reading local coverage if you charged for it?  Are the TV stations going to start charging for their news sites?  If not, why would I pay any sort of significant subscription to kansascity.com when I can get local news for free at the TV sites?

It will take an industry wide change. If the NY Times etc. start charging as well, that will reduce the amount of "free" news available online.  Sure the basic AP stories will still be out there on Yahoo, but if you want more someone has to pay.

Local TV sites aren't really much competition to the local newspaper.  You can get the latest crime stories and maybe a blurb about the latest dust up at City Hall, but that is about it.

lock+load wrote: It will take an industry wide change. If the NY Times etc. start charging as well, that will reduce the amount of "free" news available online.  Sure the basic AP stories will still be out there on Yahoo, but if you want more someone has to pay.

But there will always be someone willing to give it away - its the nature of the internet.  If you charge a subscription, you are really limiting yourself to the tiny fraction of people willing to pay for an extra level of quality or a specialized focus of coverage - that has to be an even smaller revenue stream than they are getting now from ads. 

lock+load wrote: Local TV sites aren't really much competition to the local newspaper.  You can get the latest crime stories and maybe a blurb about the latest dust up at City Hall, but that is about it.

For 95% of Kansas Citians that pretty much sums up what they want in news coverage. 

They are going to have to find a different way to make money - better maximization of ad revenue seems like a starter.  I would be a rich man if I knew the solution, but online subscriptions will only accelerate the death march. 

I should also point out that decreasing print subscriptions are only a small fraction of newspapers' problems.  For example - classifieds/help wanted revenue was historically a big part of a newspaper's bread and butter, charging ridiculous rates.  Sites like craigslist and Monster.com have beaten the shit out of that revenue.  Why pay five times as much to reach a fraction of the audience?  I don't know what the answer is to that, but charging subscriptions sure isn't going to make them more competitive with those other sites. 

if you want to watch a curious "future" scenario, catch up on the seattle post-intelligencer. they may be going online only after years of operating deficits. this is what should happen to "newspapers", along with an intense focus on local news gathering. why does the white house need 100 reporters all covering the same story? why do you need a local movie critic? there's so much duplication right now, and this shakeup will cause focused organizations to prevail and unfocused ones to falter.

they should charge aggregators for content, by article, not local users.

Looks like it:

http://www.bottomlinecom.com/kcnews/kcs ... bspay.html

I like to read the Star, but I want to start charging THEM every time they have a story on which celebrities look the most like a cat or whenever they run a KU story with a headline that includes some play on the word 'Self.'

Anyway - anyone have a rough count of the number of people the Star currently employs?

They are saying a 15% layoff will be 150 people, so I'd assume 1,000.

Will there even be a paper left?  The Sunday edition is just a shell of the old version.  The Saturday edition has been beefed up some.  Overall, the amount of "news" appears to have decreased in every edition.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Will there even be a paper left?  The Sunday edition is just a shell of the old version.  The Saturday edition has been beefed up some.  Overall, the amount of "news" appears to have decreased in every edition.

dramatic change is required. instead of making cuts in content areas that are duplicated elsewhere (automotive, movies, TV, classifieds, opinion), i'm sure they'll make "across the board" cuts or something. this will make local coverage suffer, their ONLY competitive content stream (because as much as some may hate the star, imagine a world with only channel 5, the pitch, and nick haines).

cut printing an actual paper to sundays only (or maybe the top 3-5 circulation days) and do the rest online. the printing press could keep busy with contract work (or just sell it?).

if mcclatchy keeps making these repeated micro-cuts without addressing the big picture, they're just going to go out of business.

another alternative is for the employees to raise money in the community to buy the paper back and take it completely local. of course this is an awful time to attempt such a thing, but the entity itself is worth saving since it's our only serious outlet for local news.

Is Nick Haines from Great Britain?

Discussion of the Star on Walt Bodine right now.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I should also point out that decreasing print subscriptions are only a small fraction of newspapers' problems.  For example - classifieds/help wanted revenue was historically a big part of a newspaper's bread and butter, charging ridiculous rates.  Sites like craigslist and Monster.com have beaten the shit out of that revenue.  Why pay five times as much to reach a fraction of the audience?  I don't know what the answer is to that, but charging subscriptions sure isn't going to make them more competitive with those other sites. 

God, yes, absolutely.  Print subscriptions and newsstand sales haven't been what pays for papers in eons.  Ad sales revenues are the issue, and traditionally, line classifieds were absolutely a big part of that.  Without entities purchasing sufficient ad space to fill your coffers, there is no paper, no matter if you're a large daily or a small town weekly.

here's a interesting tale from denver, where they just lost one of their two dailies:

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/20 ... ome_pa.php

The local-first rule is something the Rocky Mountain News made a central part of its mission, and it's particularly suited to the way information dissemination has evolved in the personal-computer age. At a time when national updates are readily available from a multitude of sources, hometown news is the best way for a local media organization to stand out and remain vital. Nevertheless, the A-section of the physical Post remains dominated by national headlines (with a few prominent Denver-based stories sprinkled in), while the lion's share of the local stuff is relegated to the secondary Denver and the West section.

Why not break with anachronistic newspaper tradition and reverse this mix, as the Rocky did? Putting an even greater emphasis on local news is a way for the Post to show Denver residents that there's a good reason for them to turn to the paper every day -- a message DenverPost.com delivers to webaholics from its very first screen.

pretty sure the star wouldn't even attempt this online.

Sounds like the axe is falling again at the Star today.  They obviously don't understand what their purpose is.  I guess they are content to shrivel up and die an increasingly less slow death.

http://www.bottomlinecom.com/kcnews/sta ... letgo.html

the East wing of 29th floor is celebrating this morning.  DeAnn Smith was laid off..  It is a sad for the rest of Kansas City

Why doesn't McClatchy just declare bankruptcy already?  They paid too much and took on too much debt for the Knight Ridder papers, and bankruptcy seems like a better resolution than totally destroying your product.  My guess is that some execs want to hold on to power.  They need to see their asses kicked to the curb too.

hometown news is the best way for a local media organization to stand out and remain vital.

True, and the one reason why one of the last outposts of print journalism to hang in there without going completely tits-up, even though they face the same declining ad sales revenues as every publication is small community publications.  Readership loyalty is fierce when it comes to actual community news.  Even if conventional wisdom/naysayers may deem it boring or non-news, it's got a definite market. There are a million places people can read (see, listen to) national headlines, but the same does not necessarily hold true for truly local stories.