OK, I promise not to make this site a regurgitation of my old newspaper philosophies. But I was compelled to pontificate by this item from Wednesday's Chicago Tribune: "Sun-Times to kill stock tables."
I think that was a popular media topic, judging by my emails Wednesday. I passed it along to friends I know after reading it at Romenesko's Poynter site and other media-types and acquaintances emailed me, too, with their viewpoints. Mostly, I witnessed a bloodthirsty call for the death of stock listings!
One of my favorite books in recent years is "The Tipping Point" by Malcom Gladwell which, as the subtitle suggests, details "How little things can make a big difference." Gladwell demonstrates how a relatively small group - properly placed - can spark anything from a fashion trend to a syphilis outbreak. Gladwell also has a cautionary note about one of his agents of change which he labeled "The Power of Context:"
"...in a given process or system, some people matter more than others."
Now, newspaper managers across the country, long weary of the expense of publishing page-after-page of non-advertising-bearing stock listings, are watching the Sun-Times move with great expectations. For the average investor, the online community can provide a more expedient invest portfolio-tracking experience. For the older reader, stock listings in the newspaper are a tradition. While Chicago's No. 2 newspaper is among the first metro newspapers to end the practice, I've been told of another company that plans to make a similar announcement this summer.
Have newspapers reached the "tipping point" in terms of such content?
Perhaps. However, the Trib article quotes Sreenath Sreenivasan, chief of the new media program at Columbia University's journalism school, with this well-timed warning: "If they put in more business reporting, more context, that would be good for the reader. If they're doing this and not doing anything to enhance the paper, that may not be a good idea."
I hope that statement gets as much attention as the Sun-Times decision to end stock listings.
Editors often go about making these types of decisions in an odd way. If I had a dime for every time I witnessed some editor brag at some editors' gathering about how he or she eliminated a feature or reader service "And the newsroom did not receive a single phone call!" I could retire for real. These poor souls truly do not comprehend the newspaper/reader relationship.
The relationship is based mostly on how relevant the newspaper is to the reader's life. And, in recent years, readers have increasingly told newspapers that they were no longer relevant to their lives. But they didn't pick up the phone to do so in most cases. They just let their subscriptions expire and if the newspaper even bothered to call to find out why - and far too many do not - telemarketers were given excuses such as "I just don't have enough time."
Think about your relevant relationships with other types of media: Did you actually call Entertainment Weekly to let them know their magazine was no longer relevant to your life - or did you just let the subscription lapse? When you stopped listening to Steve Dahl on the radio, did you send him him a card or letter? When the TV sitcom "Frazier" became tedious in Year No. 6 of its 11-year run, did you send Kelsey Grammer a telegram? When media moths Ben Affleck/Jennifer Lopez morphed into "Bennifer" and overwhelmed and violated your consciousness, did you e-mail them to explain your reluctance to "Gigli?"
Why, then, do editors expect readers to call them with a pronouncement when they feel their relevant relationship has been thus violated? Sure, readers call if they believe an article or an opinion (like an editorial endorsement) is offensive. But these folks are in the minority of cancelations. They have a passion that has intersected with the newspaper and the likelihood of these readers actually canceling or remaining away from the newspaper for any extended period of time is nil.
As in gastronomic attacks, be fearful of the silent, but deadly variety of readership indifference...
I was fortunate to spend the past 13 years at Shaw Newspapers where I had much freedom to build teams to fully utilize content innovations. In recent years, many non-progressive newspaper companies have, in contrast, cut content costs and then flattered themselves that the moves were deft; that the lowly reader never caught on that he/she is getting less for more. After all, no one has called. We've eliminated features, reporters, photographers, meeting coverage, prep sports coverage, graduation sections, etc. And guess what!? No one called!!
Ah, but circulation numbers declined... That should have been enough of a wake-up call.
I agree with Sreenivasan: A stock listing cut must be replaced by a content augmentation. And I'll add this caveat: Merely redirecting readers away from the print product to the Internet is NOT enough augmentation. Newspapers have to balance the desire to save on newsprint costs by eliminating such content with the need to maintain/attract readers with better, more relevant content. Newspapers must avoid giving readers yet another reason to put their newspaper down for good.
And, keeping "The Tipping Point" in mind, I suggest watching to see how the Chicago Tribune responds to the stock listing conundrum. They still set the benchmark for newspaper content in many markets. Therefore, what the Trib does matters more than others...
No comments:
Post a Comment