It’s amazing to me that the LA Times is still having its food fights in public. Publisher David Hiller announced that the paper would take page-one ads, and in a story in the paper, itss editor, Jim O’Shea, said he fought the move and appointed a committee across departments not including his own to oppose the ads.
Meanwhile, the ship is sinking. In his memo to the staff, Hiller said that revenue is down 10 percent and cash flow is down a whopping – his words – 27 percent in latest quarter and that run-of-paper advertising (the big ads) is down 20 percent in the last few years.
Surely everyone can see where this is headed. Shoes wet yet?
I’m not opposed to page-one ads but I’d say that’s not where all this energy, effort, and angst should be going. It’s not that the paper doesn’t matter but with this rate of decline, what everyone should be concentrating on is what come after the paper: not a reinvented print product, not new companions to a print product, but a new conception of local news.
In his memo, Hiller praised the development going on, both in print and online: the launch of a new section, the redesign of another two, and two new online entertainment products. And he talks about one of those corporate initiatives that yield meetings and banners — “Times Change,” this one is called. That’s all well and good.
But what is the LA Times as a local brand and service — note: service vs. product — going to look like in five years and how is it going to get there? How can it get far more local than it is today? How can it build broader networks of people and content and advertising? How can it pay for all that development and experimentation? And how can it survive long enough to get there?
I’d say a page-one ad is no big deal and should even be welcomed if it pays for that work, the work of survival.
Dear Readers,
The equation is complex and forms the basis of much of the editorial staffs. On the one hand, the newspaper must keep its own tone – narrative journalism style – which represents its identity. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the same newspaper must tend towards a certain financial expansion. That is the reason why a sum of sacrifices must be made to continue to federate a significant number readers. Actually, that does not seem impossible to put ads on a page-one, and to improve the contents of the articles. As you – Jeff Jarvis – said, “a page-one ad is no big deal and should even be welcomed if it pays for that work, the work of survival.” It is the price to pay to be independent!
Emeline
This page-one ad bruhaha is just another indicator of an industry that for decades has been acting on its own quirky thinking of what a newspaper should be, and stopped paying attention to the real perceptions, needs, and wants of its readers. The reverence with which they hold their news “products†(ouch, that probably hurt) does not match the real world views of their “customers†(now THAT was punching below the fold — we are “citizens,†not “customersâ€, remember?). (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)
Steve,
I am sorry to make me the devil’s advocate, but moment when we buy a product – and a newspaper is a product, we become customers!
Best Regards,
Emeline
Jeff Jarvis makes perfect sense…and says it all with the title, “Racing Stripes on the Titanic.” To me it’s all “Ghost Dancing,” a last reactionary spasm on the part of people who are seeing their way of life changing. It’s not about one-page ads, it’s about maintaining a sense of dignity and self-importance. Or in this case a pretty rarefied and self-important impression of the Times. As someone who used to love the food section when it spoke to us rank-and-file Angelenos, I wouldn’t mind a more local, more responsive paper. And anyone whose parents are living knows that eliminating the TV times (even moving it to Saturday) is little more than a cruel strike against old folks, who are the last loyal readers of the paper. The Titanic sunk. This ship, however, seems like it’s being scuttled. But as the thing goes down, I’d expect lots more of this idealistic public longing for a mythic past.
“I am sorry to make me the devil’s advocate, but moment when we buy a product – and a newspaper is a product, we become customers!”
It is because this statement is so wrong that newspapers are in the hole that they find themselves.
Newspapers are in the business of selling advertising, not news. Their customers are advertisers, not readers.
Newspapers are in a bind because the interests of advertisers and the interests of readers are in opposition to each other. They cannot serve two masters, and their attempts to do so put them at a competitive disadvantage in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
Placing ads on page one is simply a concession to one master at the expense of the other. The editorial department has always advocated for the reader, but the reader doesn’t pay the piper, therefore the editorial department can’t call the tune.
Ad-supported media is currupt and corrupting and deserves to die.
What do you call it when the change proposed is huge and not nearly enough, therefore small?
The question from the reader’s point of view is: Will the ads be worth my time? TV ads are costlier to make than the shows they interrupt, and often superior. If the Times imposes high entertainment-value standards, it might make page one more fun. Not all ads are created equal.