Can it continue to compete for traditional news and advertising with the two other national dailies? Or should it radically recast itself in the way it presciently redefined newspapering when it was founded 28 years ago?
The two big news stories are the disclosure of nearly 77,000 classified government reports tracking six years of the Afghanistan war, and the ousting of BP CEO Tony Hayward. The advertisement is today's four-page Jeep pre-print, which for the second time this month wrapped the main news section.
Let me say quickly and firmly that USAT employees are fiercely competitive, and ache to stay ahead of the pack; I saw that first-hand during the eight years I worked there as a reporter and occasional editor, until I took a buyout more than two years ago.
Yet, virtually from its September 1982 launch, and especially in recent years after job cuts and other reductions, the staff's ability to compete on the national stage has been pinched as it sticks to its current business model. In news, it wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, even though those two have newsrooms at least three times bigger. I don't know the ratio in advertising sales, but I imagine it doesn't favor USAT, either.
Now, USAT's resources are to be reduced further, as Publisher Dave Hunke (left) plans a reorganization that he's already said will result in layoffs. In that scenario, does it make sense for the paper to chase the biggest news stories when it becomes even harder to stay even with the competition, much less get ahead? That seems virtually impossible, especially in a media landscape where digital delivery makes traditional news a commodity.
Wouldn't it be smarter for USAT to focus far more on enterprise and investigative journalism, plus unexpected promotions for its advertisers, like the Jeep wrap -- challenging the status quo as it did in 1982? USAT could leave the commodity news to the wire services, and zoom ahead with exclusives and innovative editing and presentation readers will remember long after the latest 24-hour news cycle recedes into the background.
Does the paper need to print five editions a week? Could it make a seismic shift toward printing once weekly, Fridays -- its most advertising-heavy day? Then it could focus more on its iPad app and other mobile devices, plus its website.
Now, it's your turn: How should USAT recast itself in the coming reorganization? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Image: today's paper, Newseum]
One-day-a-week publication makes sense. Look at the Christian Science Monitor, which has made the transition from print to digital with a once-a-week print publication. It is thriving. For USAT, it is clear the hotel distribution strategy isn't working. I recently checked into a hotel and watched as customers walked over the papers left on their doorsteps in the morning. If it is once a week, it has to be compelling, it has to be different, and it has to be serious.
ReplyDeleteThe future of USAT is on the Web, with delivery of news via Ipads, Ipods and the new generation of devices that will follow. I might be more radical and pull the plug completely on a print product, but there are still readers who like the printed product.
One thing for sure, USAT can't keep competing with the other national dailies (plus cable, radio, web-based news, blogs, etc). Its newsroom has not only shrunk in number of positions, but there seems to be leadership gaps throughout editorial. Gaps that seem to be leading to more and more havoc created by inexperience, and in certain cases, blatant incompetency. I have heard similar tales in marketing, advertising and other departments.
ReplyDeleteToo many key people have left or been deemed disposable. This was never a large newsroom in comparison with the papers you mentioned, but it did possess enough staff and front-line editors to do some pretty amazing work on a far more consistent basis.
It's one thing to get beat throwing your best punch. It's another thing to surrender. And that is what USAT is doing, slowly, painfully and without so much as a defensive jab.
So yes, it would be preferable if USAT completely reinvented itself rather than slowly becoming irrelevant. If that means going to once a week, so be it. I don't really care anymore. I just want to know what and whom we have to work with, what the goal is and be done with all these layoffs, furloughs and nonsense created by some of the new leaders on every level and unclear initiatives. I am discouraged by all of the good people this paper has gotten rid of and, as I said at the start, know we can't go on this way for much longer.
Once a week?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Time and Newsweek try that?
USA Today, like virtually everything Gannett, was started and run on the cheap. The only difference now is that the company wants to do it even cheaper.
ReplyDeleteThe paper was never a serious competitor of the major U.S. dailies.
The idea of recasting the paper to focus on investigative pieces, and other avenues away from daily news, is a good idea.
At the least that would differentiate the paper in a positive way, and if coupled with a similar online effort, could draw a regular supply of readers.
I'm not a wise guy when I say that I've never known anyone to be a regular USA Today reader. In fact, I know many people who've never read it. It's image to many, unfortunately, was as a travel giveaway.
I second the idea of a once-a-week publication, also citing the Christian Science Monitor model.
I wish everyone there good luck.
Problem: Once-a-week publication would require a new, more space-consuming nameplate -- USA A Few Days From Now or maybe USA Last Friday.
ReplyDeleteThe model for the printed product should be Barron's, except not primarily a financial news product. Barron's is a specialist weekly that breaks news and is an excellent product that gets little outside attention. I think a weekly newspaper with tough, investigative reporting and original stories appealing to a broad cross-section of Americans would be a success. I would even consider withholding the new weekly stories from the Web product of USAT, and make it a unique must-read for readers.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought of Barron's, 12:13 p.m. -- and I'm a subscriber. In any case, I think you're right -- if USA Today could stake out a certain niche of investigative/enterprise/public service reporting that it could make uniquely its own.
ReplyDeleteSince traveling businessmen are a big part of USAT's readership, I'd suggest more business news, more busines features, and more lifestyle stories. Perhaps more sports as well, going beyond yesterday's scores recap. Let's face it, breaking news is the domain of tv and the internet. USAT is best at features, lifestyle bits and infotainment. And that's not a knock on the paper at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the point of this exercise is, unless you're casually floating a rumor you've heard but don't want to publish because it sounds too speculative. Or perhaps you're hoping someone will be tempted to come forward with something about the reorganization that at least sounds plausible.
ReplyDeleteEither way, it doesn't seem to be working.
I'm trying to spark a discussion about USAT's next steps; in that respect, I think it's working.
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't noticed, those of us working at USA TODAY have absolutely no say in our future at the newspaper. So clearly we have no say in the paper's future.
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate that you're trying to spark a discussion, and for those who don't work at USA TODAY and aren't living under the dangling sword of Hunke's "oh, by the way" remark, I suppose it's a fun cerebral exercise. To the rest of us, it just magnifies the futility of our situation and the extreme discomfort of being totally in the dark.
Re 7:42 a.m.: In the dark is where Gannett likes to keep its employees. And even when the door is cracked a bit, the truth is heavily shadowed.
ReplyDeleteI recall that in Westchester a couple of years back that folks who took a buyout got considerably less money than they thought they would.
That was because it was paid in a single sum, classified as a one-time "bonus" that was taxed in the 50 percent range.
It seems that human resources, if that's what you can call that department, didn't think it was necessary to tell anyone. And the voluminous info packet never mentioned it.
I might add that in subsequent layoffs, the sums were paid in weekly installments.
Good luck to folks at USAT....Your community news cohorts know how you feel!