In the long run, its flagship national daily, USA Today is probably going to benefit from the wave of closings we have been seeing, says Tim Melvin at Yahoo Finance. "Without a local daily, readers will turn to the national paper for news. In addition to the papers, Gannett has 23 network television stations and a new online division. It is by no means exempt from the problems facing the industry, but I believe it survives and emerges from the recession in a strong position. Although the stock has tripled off its March lows, it sells for less than 10% of what the shares fetched just two years ago."Earlier: the USA Today Confidential open-comment forum
"Without a local daily, readers will turn to the national paper for news."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Without a local daily, people will not have local news. That doesn't mean they'll gravitate to USA Today.
If USA Today keeps stripping away what made it successful, it's going to have a hard time taking advantage of a market with less competition. I happen to believe that competition is good for journalism, and as a result, the country. But I also understand the business realty. USA Today can make some gains now if it plays its cards right.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today still has many assets and advantages, but there is no denying the newspaper is diluted, not as well edited or designed as it once was.
Blame it on layoffs, buyouts and people just getting fed up with the place and leaving. The current talent pool is shallow and there are some at USA Today who just make me shake my head in disbelief that they've survived as long as they have or were ever hired in the first place. They have no business working at a newspaper, let alone in the newsroom. Yes, they are mostly nice folks, but please. Their limitations are in full display each and every day for anyone willing to acknowledge the truth.
Somehow, the flagship needs to attract better journalistic talent on every level, from assignment editors, reporters and department heads to copy desk staff, designers and others. It's all about content and packaging, and USA Today has slipped in those areas.
Additionally, just like Apple had to bring back Steve Jobs and support personnel beneath him to rescue Apple, I would say some of the institutional knowledge that was lost at USA Today in recent months and years needs to be rehired. Reclaim those who knew how to make things function. USA Today is unique in publishing, and some of those people had unique talents. This isn't an attempt to recapture the good old days, but rather a commonsense approach to blending experience and skillful newcomers. Identify the people who made things work for the brand, and rehire them, while also focusing on new recruits with a broader understanding of the business. Don't make the assumption that because someone is brand new to USA Today and comes with a bag of tricks and a big resume that they are what is best for the paper. In some cases, narrow, targeted skills and specialists are needed, but so are generalists. There aren't enough people in this newsroom capable of doing multiple and different tasks.
The time is now to start rebuilding USA Today with proven former employees and bright new hires who don't have to learn on the job. The time has also come to admit to some hiring mistakes in the past and to fix that situation. Too many people aren't pulling their own weight and are creating issues for others.
If USA Today is going to make a comeback and take advantage of fewer competitors in the big cities, these things need to be done soon, before the paper and staff deteriorates any further. Before its reputation is tarnished to the point of being unable to revive it. The Apple model is a good one. I would urge those who have only focused on growing the web site to reassess the importance of having a solid and innovative print product on the streets.
11:58 -- Good point. I agree with the analysis that USAT is in a good position. I think it's one of the papers that will survive and perhaps even thrive ... and I work at a community daily. Trouble is that can only happen if it continues to be a strong product.
ReplyDeleteGannett has been able to gut the local papers because there's no competition to speak of. If you want a local paper, you're forced to take the GCI rag or read the paper's Web site ... whether it's good or not. Sure, 70% of it is crap, but you're not going to get the 30% you want anywhere else.
That's not true with USAT. If it wants to be successful it will have to continue to provide some value. You can find similar news at CNN and MSNBC, numerous Web sites and from other national papers, including the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
USAT is more populist than the last two entries, so its got a niche, but it's going to have to do a good job filling it in order to survive.
I've never understood why Gannett would make across the board cuts in the company, punishing successful papers to prop up those that are struggling. And I certainly don't know why it would cut into the quality of USAT at a time like this.
On the other hand, people have short memories. If they keep USAT alive through the downturn, they can start to throw money at it when they have more cash and the paper will likely do just fine.
11:58 -- Interesting to hear your comments about the USAT environment. The same is true at my community paper. We have a handful of editorial staff who seem ill-equipped to work in any sort of environment that requires advanced planning and open communication. How they've been allowed not only to remain, but advance, is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that local, daily readers will turn to other venues.
ReplyDeleteActually, I do not believe USAT is positioned either journalistically or economically to take advantage of the decline of local newspapers. Because of the economic squeeze, USAT already is concentrating on the larger cities, and distribution in hotels. It's not as if USA TODAY is going to hire a whole bunch of new distributors to take over the circulation of a dead paper. Journalistically, it lacks the local stories that made people read local papers. Without local daily papers, people will find alternatives for their local news, but they won't find that in USA TODAY. It's not like everyone is addicted to newspapers and needs to find an alternative newspaper if their's dies.
ReplyDeleteUSAToday is is a train wreck. Have you seen that website???
ReplyDeleteWho the hell is in charge of that disaster?
In the NY NJ CONN area there is cable news called NEWS 12. In these areas people will not pay for the lack of content in GCI papers or their websites. They will just watch the local news that comes with their basic cable service
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a "malfunctioning" business model.
ReplyDeleteEncouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.
Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."
Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.
Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.
"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."
He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."
This post will probably be deleted by the blog administrator - again.