Saturday, August 24, 2013

What to say when readers complain 'you keep shrinking my newspaper and charging me more'

The Journal & Courier in Lafayette, Ind., is killing its TV grid, dropping the already-meager stock market listings, and publishing business news and opinion pages just three times a week instead of seven.

Not surprisingly, management expects customers won't be happy when these changes go into effect Monday. So yesterday, Executive Editor Howard Witt gave employees a set of talking points if they get a call from an angry reader.

Witt's suggestions involve some of the most convoluted, pretzel-twisted reasoning I've seen in a long time. Here's an example of a possible reader complaint offered by Witt, and his suggested response:

Reader: You keep shrinking my newspaper and charging me more for it. What’s up with that?

J&C: We’re changing some of our content to give it a sharper local focus in the newspaper and an expanded presence online, at jconline.com and on smartphones and tablets. Our aim is to give print readers more of the in-depth, community-focused news, features and sports content they consistently tell us they want and that no other news provider in this region can match.

At the same time, we are enhancing the value of the all-access digital subscription that you already have with more and faster local news coverage, engaging videos, helpful news alerts and useful databases.

What Witt doesn't say
It's looking more and more like Corporate is going to force through another big print subscription rate hike this fall across the U.S. community dailies. This will happen soon after another series of layoffs has further sapped newsroom resources.

So, the papers are being told to mount another less-is-more spin campaign. Indeed, that's exactly what Witt is doing in a column he's written for tomorrow's paper. He provided the text to employees in advance; I'll post a link when it becomes available. [Updated at 11:36 a.m. ET Aug. 25. Here's that link.]

The J&C's weekday circulation is 25,455, and Sunday is 34,563, according to the March 31 AAM report. (AAM circulation database lookup.)

34 comments:

  1. HAHAHAHA!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The paper is a joke, no news, no sports and now no business, soon to be called The Indy Star state edition for Lafayette, Muncie, Richmond and Muncie,

      Delete
    2. Their is light at the end of the tunnel. Almost time to start my new job.
      The Happy Pressman, just got happier

      Delete
    3. "Lafayette, Muncie, Richmond and Muncie," You must like Muncie.

      "The Happy Pressman, just got happier" What an active imagination you have. What is this imaginary job?

      Delete
    4. Im a gigalo and I like it...

      HP

      Delete
  2. Just sell the damn papers and get it over with, Gannett. Maybe the new owner can beef them back up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stop worrying about defending yourself with talking points and just say that corporate is telling you to cut because they need to make their targets so they can get bonuses.

    The readers will at least respect your honesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. All because of bonuses, not because the business has collapsed.

      Here's a clue: Readers aren't as stupid as reporters who are in denial.

      Delete
  4. What's funny is that, as a reporter, I would never accept crap like this. Yet someone in charge in this company is telling me to tell people this? I think the bad times have just really hit home in my brain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think crap is really at home in your brain.

      Delete
    2. Knock it off. 12:22 is showing integrity. What a concept.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tell readers the truth: They never paid anywhere near what it cost to produce their precious newspaper, and that will still be the case if we quadruple the price. They can pony up, or shut up already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't put it quite that way, but it would be useful to tell readers that advertising used to foot most of the bill, but it can no longer do so, and we need readers to help make up the difference. Also, though, if you continue cutting content -- especially local content like columnists and watchdog journalism -- then readers should NOT pony up. People pay for things they feel have real value.

      Delete
    2. People pay for things they feel have real value.

      Which just reinforces the reality that readers NEVER valued original newspaper content very highly, because nobody ever asked them to pay for it. That's why, after years of layoffs, the level of employment producing that content is still way out of proportion to the actual demand.

      To put it another way, the advertising model insulated journalists from the marketplace. It meant that journalists never had to sell themselves, never had to make the case for the value of their work. Now, if they are to survive, they have to shift gears, and need to seize every opportunity to persuade readers to pay them what they're worth.

      Of course, they've been trained like seals to think they're above all that.

      Delete
  7. Great post 1;05 PM - in Shreveport, they spelled the name of our city wrong in huge letters on the front page - Who is Bossier? Should be Who is Bossier City? If you can't get the basic things right, what can you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wish readers would get smart and all cancel. Quit taking this nonsense from the Papers trying to move everyone over to digital.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. 5:05 so more of us can lose our jobs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No so others can come in and do a better job. People like the people that are running the Orange County Register. They have been hiring and are now expanding into areas they weren't serving before. There is still a need for a community paper that cares about their customers and employees and what they want. Gannett isn't that company.

      Delete
    2. 7:34 PM - You may comfort yourself by believing there still is a "need", but there aren't enough people willing to pay the freight. That is the cold hard reality, and it is not Gannett's fault.

      Delete
    3. There are enough people it's just that many have found other ways since Gannett and other papers decided that the paper wasn't relevant in peoples lives anymore. Don't give mew the old people were moving away from it already and Gannett had no choice argument. Gannett never even tried. Keep telling yourself they had no choice if it makes them feel better for all the layoffs and lost revenue.

      Delete
  10. Less is more, down is up, dumb is smart.
    Obama is great, the economy is wonderful, and we are all valuable team members.
    What happened to the law of physics?

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    You said: It's looking more and more like Corporate is going to force through another big print subscription rate hike this fall across the U.S. community dailies.

    What evidence do you have that price increases are on the horizon? Oris this just your "speculatin' again?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what the head of marketing for the Central Group told a Des Moines TV station last month.

      Delete
  13. Sure would have hated to be the guy who had to spin that yarn. What a load. And they have the gall to say that what's in print is just a fraction of what's on the website. More local news on the website, you say, or just more national-feed stuff available elsewhere? About the only other local stuff I see on my particular site is weekend photo galleries. Gannett, just lock the doors and call it a day with your news operations. You've gutted a lot of once-proud organizations beyond necessary and to the point of pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jim – I’ve read this blog from its inception and for the most part, you’ve done a good job.

    But, to be clear, you spiking a post that said tell readers the truth about how the higher costs of doing business today (i.e. the Affordable Care Act’s impact, higher/longer than expected gas and electric energy costs, FICA’s restoration, etc.) has made it more challenging for Gannett and those who support to it to operate exposes what can only be your own political bias and that’s unfortunate.

    Those points weren’t intended to slam the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania. They were offered as simple truths that businesses face far more costly challenges than what they faced just a few years ago.

    Delta Airlines is but the latest to say how the ACA alone will cost it $100 million, an amount that will have them giving fliers even less for more money.

    If you think Gannett and those who support it are immune even after adding up that bill, higher energy prices and more, then you’re really not interested in discovering the truth...just in slamming Gannett.

    Whatever your motive may be means little as your answer is to avoid any adult discussion of those truths at all, truths too many are only just finding out as they are told their jobs are gone, their hours have been cut because 30 hours is now full-time under the ACA, and more.

    All of which gets back to the purpose of this post, which is readers know that when they’re told “we’re changing some of our content to give it a sharper local focus..” that it really means they’re going to get less.

    Exactly why Gannett should be more truthful with readers, something that might make that bitter pill a bit more easy to swallow, more so as it’s driven by other material factors well out of Gannett’s control.

    This blog's credibilty, and yours, would benefit from the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. The job losses have had nothing to do with the AFA and are not political. They also have got little to do with higher gas prices. They were about lost revenue and trying to move the company away from print and towards digital. They are also about driving up the stock price so Board members and top executives can get more money from Wall street.

      Delete
    3. Mean ACA not AFA.

      Delete
  15. 5:37's post is the equivalent of saying that a guy with a gaping head wound is dying because of a stone in his shoe.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.