And on the seventh day, the presses rested
Kim Fletcher in the Guardian predicts the death of the Sunday paper in the UK. The problem there is that Sunday papers have separate staffs — thus added costs — and in the case of the Guardian, a separate brand: The Observer. The problem, Fletcher says, is that news is not just daily anymore — it’s constant online — and so how does a weekly rhythm fit into this new music?
In the U.S. most Sunday papers operate with the same staffs as the daily. When I was Sunday editor of the New York Daily News, I saw continuing efforts to dedicate reporting staff to Sunday, efforts that failed as the hands were recruited to work on daily stories. So the inefficiency of a separate Sunday staff is not really an issue here. And I don’t fully understand why it is an issue in the UK; Sunday’s just another day, only fatter.
But I do wonder about the fate of the Sunday paper from our end of the press. I don’t read Sunday papers anymore. I spend the weekend catching up on reading many sources, including Sunday papers, online. Sunday’s best business reason to exist here was classified advertising and with that shriveling like a year-old grape, they are less profitable. Oh, they’re not doomed yet. As long as papers still print, they’ll likely print on Sundays. Saturday papers face a more dire fate here, since they are not bought and have little advertising. But I have to wonder whether the tradition of the fat Sunday read is in doubt here as well.
Tags: newspapers
October 17th, 2006 at 7:36 am
“shriveling like a year-old grape”
Nice.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Increasingly, I turn to the Sunday papers only for the editorials and the coupons.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Or the free DVDs they’re increasingly having to turn to… Buenavista Social Club was a nice little bonus in Sunday’s Observer.
Sunday papers will surely move more away from reporting news per se and more into weightier editorial in not just the news but the sport and review sections. Plus there’ll be more specialist magazines like the Observer’s sport/ music/ food monthly.
Is there not something more ritualistic about The Sunday Paper, whether it’s read in the pub, on the sofa, over breakfast? It’s more social than checking editorial on line. Perhaps i’m old fashioned.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:22 am
I’m in a bit of agreement with Jim Karna. It seems to me the Sunday paper, at least traditionally in the US, is the only day that really calls for a print product, provided the papers moved away from reporting, and towards more in depth editorial, arts, sports, etc. features for that Sunday edition. At that point, you’re really talking about converting daily newspapers into an online news resource coupled with a print weekly magazine. This has often seemed an appealing destination to me.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Picking up on Jim’s comment on “ritual†– and agreeing with James Cooney: Kill the dailies, and just publish paper on Sunday. I for one only buy a paper on Sunday – the only day I have maintained any kind of “ritual†with a newspaper. I work from home, so no commute etc when I might have bought a paper in the past. Nonetheless, as more and more we look to alternative sources for instant news, isn’t the Sunday paper actually the one edition of the week with space for more in depth reporting, analysis and editorial that might actually justify printing it on paper?
And please, no more DVDs, CD-ROMS and other assorted crap with my news. If you can’t sell it without the freebies, then sure – it’s time to stop.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I rarely read any of the papers in their paper form. Still, there’s got to be a huge market among those who have not yet died but probably will in the next 25 years, and though it’s declining, it makes sense to milk it while it lasts.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I’m leaning the other way - Saturday and Sunday are the only days I read in paper anymore, and I guard that time jealously.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I agree with Jim, James and Peter that the Sunday paper ritual won’t easily be replaced. To Jim’s list of pub, sofa and breakfast I would only add, “in bed”.
I disagree with Peter, however, about the additional content (aka “assorted crap”) bundled with the paper. I think it’s a great strategy. It’s another reason for non-subscribers to make an impulse buy at the newsstand, it can provide an additional revenue stream, and it can’t readily be duplicated online. Obviously, free crap is still crap, but I’ve seen it done right. I was in France recently and on successive days got a Tintin book for my son via Le Figaro and a guide to the French real estate market from (of all places) Le Monde.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
you can get rid of mondays to fridays. people are too busy on myspace and youtube to read newspapers.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:02 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis sheds his deconstructive light on print media roots by highlighting newspaper editor CP Snow. [...]
October 18th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Several years ago I switched the money I normally spent on newspapers / news magazines to a high speed Internet connection. I’ll never go back.
First, all of the stuff that was in the newspaper i.e. classifieds, comics, etc. is available on-line. Second, the newspapers moved the OpEd page to the front page without labeling it as such, which in my book is propaganda, and hence has no value to me, so I don’t pay for it anymore.
As far as I’m concerned, the newspapers / news magazines can all burn to the ground, and I’d never notice. I crave factual news, and newspapers / news magazines are definitely not the place to obtain it. They tend to print only those facts that support their political agenda, and omit those that don’t. They even make some of it up to boot. I want all the facts, so the Internet is where I hang out … and yes, it takes much longer than reading the newspaper, but at least when I’m done I have a better understanding of what really happened.