"Craft enthusiasts everywhere, mourn."
-- USA Today reader Reflect08, in a comment on one of the paper's most popular stories at the moment: Kimberly-Clark takes swipe at tubeless toilet paper. As I post this, the Page One story has attracted more than 200 comments.
Now THAT'S a content ring!
ReplyDeleteOne wonders how the PR folks at Subway sandwiches felt about the proximity of their very, very expensive Page One ad to the toilet paper story, immediately above.
ReplyDeleteIf it got huge readership, then LOVED it.
ReplyDelete1:27,
ReplyDeleteYes - huge readership. Nothing draws a big audience like a well-written, well-researched story on toilet paper.
And a high quality audience as well!
ReplyDeleteActually, it is amazing how much waste can be reduced by taking such a simple step as doing away with the cardboard tube!
OK. But next I want a big A1 story on why half of the toilet paper I buy dispenses "over the top" and the other half dispenses "from the bottom." I never got that.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about these days, but at one time, I'd have had to give Subway that ad for free because of its adjacency to that story.
ReplyDeleteAnd 2:32 - Truer words were never written. Thanks.
I'm surprised the headline didn't read: "Kimberly-Clark: The USA's Shitty Outlook On Life"
- Gath
Maybe we're all looking at the toilet paper story the wrong way and not giving proper credit. Perhaps this piece is just one of a series and it's impact can only be understood after all the stories have run. A cummulative effect, I guess. Let's give our edit folks the benefit of the doubt and see what happens as the series unfolds.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind the online treatment was outstanding today, including tips on proper wiping (including video) and animation that follows the trail of actual toilet paper from originator to final resting place in the sewers of Loudon County. This is great stuff.
Oh, har!
ReplyDeletei was taught to fill page one with stories people couldn't find anywhere else. Well, USAT flushed a beauty from the reams of PR promos that pile up in most newsrooms each day. however, i'm not certain the "differentness" of the toilet paper caper lifts it to such prominent play...i mean, atop a subway ad? yikes. my mentor, who was never wrong, would have run a brief of that story somewhere in the lifestyle or biz section. but she was an editor, or was that obvious?
ReplyDeleteI can't waste my quarters on USA Today anymore. If it's lying around, I will take a look at it because I am somewhat of a news junkie and enjoy seeing different approaches in coverage. But when I do read USA Today, it's just more disappointing than the last time I read it. I think the Times, WSJ and Post do a relatively good job, but I sense some cutbacks in certain kinds of coverage I enjoyed in those pubs, too. It just seems newspapers don't want to take readers seriously anymore, therefore, readers are detaching. Serious news consumers are going to have to go elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today's starting point was always a notch below the Times. Now it's about three notches below, and that's with the Times slipping, too.
I want to stress to publishers, editors and others in that industry that the average reader is much more discriminating than you think. They are a loyal sort who notice thinner papers, less content, sloppier editing and so forth. If you disappoint them often enough, as you have in recent years, they will betray you. You can't blame it all on the internet. Just one observer's opinion -- someone who worked in newspaper circulation years ago.
more testimony from a reader who can tell the difference between a Kia and a Cadillac. why have so many newspaper leaders forgotten that quality counts? the toilet paper caper is a symptom of much deeper ills at USAT. it's lost its way since Neuharth launched it many years hence. is it to be a livelier version of the NY Times or People magazine? is it to stand for the highest standards of serious journalism or fritter away it's remaining credibility with fluff and poor workmanship? if there's anyone left at USAT who knows the difference, put them in charge.
ReplyDeleteOh no, we're not elitists. We have the golden touch, magical wisdom on What Is Important flows from our fingers so that you stupid non-journalists can pretend to be as smart as us. This TP story offends my eyes!
ReplyDeleteChallenge: Find a topic in the last year on A1 USAT that touches more lives than toilet paper. OBVIOUSLY, (hopefully) there is the daily use factor. But for the other facets: There is the "greening" of the product by reducing paper waste, the reduction in product cost, the evolving of a product over 100 years old and more. In my market, this story would also concern the fibreboard manufacturers and what losses they predict, what the local competition is saying and probably an interactive web piece showing how to roll a roll without a core.
Let me give you a laundry list of what really doesn't affect or interest me. French riots, Haitian diarrhea, New York's governor, baseball teams, or mosques, jerk politicians, actors' issues, 'quotes' attributed to a 'senior anything official', or anything south of Missouri.
Maybe toilet paper is on your list. So do what I do, TURN THE FRICKIN' PAGE and find something that IS interesting.
Sidebar: Subway stopped caring about what content they were next to when we started selling eyeballs instead of prestige. We're delivering an audience to the advertiser, content to the reader. Adjacencies don't matter as much as we think they do.
Stories like this are what used to distinguish USA Today and make it as successful as it was. All of you complaining about it are part of the problem, not the solution. USA Today should go back to its story selection roots with more stories like this and less international stories on the front page.
ReplyDeleteIf you can stop harumphing for a minute, check this story's arc thru the news ecosystem. Widespread pickup: newspapers, network TV (morning talk and evening news), local TV, aggregators like Daily Beast, etc. It's not just a talker, it's a green story. It makes a global issue personal in a simple, elegant way that Al Gore and NYT editors can only envy. I'm sure WSJ would have placed it right about where USAT did on A1.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to read tomorrow's front page piece on prune - sorry, "plum" - juice.
ReplyDelete"Never Gray!"
I just wish the toilet paper story was the A1 instead of buried at the bottom. Can you think of a more important news item of the day?
ReplyDeleteI agree there should be fewer international stories on page 1, but I don't agree that USAT should run stories just because they have water-cooler value. If news judgment is simply determined by how many people might read something, then editors at USAT aren't living up to their journalistic responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if USAT wants to be less serious and analytical with its domestic report, perhaps it should change to a tabloid format and stop pretending to be in the same league with the NYT.
What I am saying is that neither approach (fluff or hard news) is wrong per se, but I am tiring of USAT's indecisiveness in terms of what it wants to be. One day it's chasing down 18 to 35-year-olds, the next day it tries to morph itself into business publication for traveling suits. For a long time it was the go-to daily for sports, now it's thinking about transforming into a boomer paper.
I understand that a general-interest paper has to have a little bit of everything, but USAT seems to be having some sort of identity crisis in recent years. That's not good for attracting and holding an audience.
4:06 - agree totally. We seem to have no idea what we want to be. We've completely lost our identity.
ReplyDelete8:09's reasoning is what's wrong, i say.
ReplyDeleteThe NY Daily News went through that identity crisis back in the 1980s. It took them a heck of a long time to get out of it and back on track.
ReplyDeleteIt's always problematic to try to be all things to all people. It really doesn't work and simply spreads the staff and other resources too thin.
That doesn't mean "general interest" is out, just that it supplements the main product, whatever that is chosen to be.
Regarding the toilet paper thing...It was an interesting read, but as one poster put it, it came from a public relations news release.
And whether it's true or not, it seems to me that too much of USA Today's "news" originated from a flack of one sort or another.
Hopefully the "investigative team" will turn that around, but to have a real impact on a regular basis it's going to need more reporters.
Press release:
ReplyDeletehttp://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/scottnaturals/46945/
USA needs to go to a tab format (not "tabloid" content), eliminate all wire copy and ENGAGE IN SOME PROMOTION. Decline stopped, right there.
ReplyDeleteWord verification: "aberp"; i.e., what I did after I finished my Subway sammich and read the TP story.
Interesting comment, 8:28. The art and science of promotion has been lost. In the past six or seven years, promotion and marketing to readers has been nearly non-existent. In recent years, USAT has spent its time marketing to advertisers while taking the reader for granted. We can all see the result.
ReplyDelete10:25
ReplyDeleteActually USA TODAY hasn't done any marketing for years and years. Lavington would not have known marketing if it hit her over the head and stole her wallet.
We should figure out a way to deliver USA Today without the cardboard tube!
ReplyDeleteI certainlly agree with the person who said that Gannett has taken the reader for granted. Well, it's just not that way, but it seems nobody can see that. Advertisers, while important, rule. To me, when you cater to advertisers, you end up faking the news, and readers can spot fake news a mile away.
ReplyDeleteThere's a great ad on the back of USA TODAY today showing how huge our total readership is when you include mobile and tablets.
ReplyDeleteI assume those will run in industry publications as well. But why not take it further -- to TV and magazines and websites -- instead of spending more money on reorganization consultants?
Re 2:03 p.m....Right you are. And advertisers are no fools, either. Some have started their own Web sites, real estate agents and car dealerships, for example, and telling Gannett to stick it.
ReplyDeleteWhen the honchos proclaim that local is their strength and then proceed to cut their local reporting/editing/photo staff,you know you're in Gannettland where BS rules the day.
Gannett's been cheating the readers for decades! It comes into town, buys a paper, slashes the number of pages, reduces the staff and voila, sucks up all of the advertising at rates never before imagined.
There's that line from The Godfather about one lawyer with a briefcase being capable of stealing more than three men with guns. Well, Gannett corporate spent decades fleecing small-town America and then shifted its MO to the national stage.
It's all about money, baby, and it ain't going into your pocket!