Regional newspapers, the BBC and holding authority to account, thanks to the taxpayers and…a bit of flatulence

The BBC is to pay £8m to provide reporters who will cover local councils.

The BBC is to use £8m of taxpayers’ cash to provide reporters who will cover local councils for regional newspapers as well as the Beeb.

Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand, I still believe in that brand of journalism we call Fourth Estate, or holding authority to account.

So for the BBC to hand out £8m to pay for 150 journalists to ensure this happens can only be good news for the regional press, can’t it?

But I can’t help but feel uncomfortable about the deal. I’m all for journalists covering local councils, but feel uneasy that this is happening as many newspaper groups continue to cut editorial staff.

Even as we speak, Trinity Mirror is cutting jobs as part of its £12m synergies after the takeover of Local World.

The problem I have is that these newspaper groups, such as Johnston Press and Trinity Mirror continue to make a healthy sum of cash.

However, despite this, they are still in many cases unwilling to cover local authorities. One reason is due to the fact that there are simply not enough staff and the second reason is that editors, even reluctantly, are making the decision not to cover this type of news.

This is because they are constantly looking over their shoulders as they attempt to hit their unique users/page views targets.

The reality is, that rarely do council stories interest the online audience in large numbers. So as an editor, if you are faced with getting the audience with a story about toilet habits which will get big hits or send to a council meeting, the hits are coming out on top.

We all accept the need to grab a slice of readers, so writing about farts being healthy, yes farts, as the Plymouth Herald recently did may just be the way forward because it would have attracted a huge audience.

As an aside, this story has one of the greatest apologises I have seen…under the story (see link above) it read: ‘This story was edited on May 5, 2016. The story originally stated that sniffing farts is good for you and helps you live longer. The Herald is happy to make clear that the research in question has not found that to be the case.’

I bet there was a riot in the newsroom as this carefully crafted apology was put together.

Right…so back to the main plot. I guess what I’m saying is that many newspapers are choosing not to write about councils and would rather right about something else.

If this is the case, why should the taxpayer pick up a bill to pay for reporters when the companies they serve already earn a decent amount?

Also, there are concerns that newspapers will take the ‘BBC’ paid reporter and then slice a job somewhere else.

Inevitably, there has also been an uneasy relationship between the BBC and the regional press. I attended a meeting last year and there was discussion over a pilot scheme where regional newspapers and the BBC were meant to be sharing content.

It was certainly more than an awkward conversation and smacked of an inability for them to work successfully together.

So, the dilemma, or is it a dilemma? The newspapers companies have certainly done well here. They get a reporter for free and the BBC picks up the tab.

I hope it works, but who is going to be out there counting the increase in local council coverage or will it be a case of gone with the wind…???

By the way, I have mentioned that I have an interesting tale about a newspaper skills audit process which will make your toes curl, that’s on its way soon.

Advertisements

They think it’s all over…should regional newspapers pull the plug on football match reports?

The screams of disgust could be heard across the land as regional newspaper hacks muttered desperately into their frothing pints of real ale.

The source of this despair was the news that Tom Bodell, who works for Newsquest North London, will no longer provide on the whistle Barnet FC match reports or in-game tweets for the Barnet Times website, or match reports in the print edition.

Why we all asked? The reason was simple, not enough web hits. It would have sent the most hardened journo racing to the bar for a top-up.

So are all decisions on stories going to be based on web hits? I have already touched on this issue before. The defunct Local World used to shout loudly by the fact that health stories didn’t get any hits so bin them and deliver more servings of web bait.

Pitch
Regional newspapers have to decide whether they can afford to cover football matches like they have traditionally done so in the past.

The reality is that not all health stories, all council stories or all football stories get big hits. Some health stories fly online, like the threat of scarlet fever or a dodgy doctor.

But the run-of-the-mill health stories often don’t get many hits online, despite the fact that they were often of real importance around staffing or finance.

We already know that Trinity Mirror journalists were threatening strike action over the firm’s ‘Big Brother’ approach to set journalists targets over how many hits they get on their stories.

In a New Year goodwill gesture, TM has now withdraw this idea…for now, although the newspapers which are doing this as a trial will continue to do so and it is certain that it will be back on the table soon.

So where is this all leading? Obviously, part of Newsquest’s decision was based on cost. The reality is that journalism is expensive and is seen as a drain on resources and not one to bring in the money, which is not true.

Selling more newspapers thanks to a big story or getting more hits online are areas where you can argue the journalist helps to bring in the cash.

There are other ways, through business awards run by newspapers which are events cleverly packaged as celebrating greatness, but the reality is that they are a damn good advert for firms involved.

Let me assure you, I’m not knocking this, I’d rather bring in £100,000 for the business to protect jobs than turn my back on this money-making opportunity.

Anyway, back to the web hits. What really annoys journalists is that based on web hits, certain stories may well never be covered again, this could include aspects of holding authority to account, what we often proudly call Fourth Estate journalism.

But there is another argument. Simply, what if the traditional news agenda is wrong? When I was in a senior editorial position I would often question whether the stories put up in conference were the stories which people really wanted to read?

While the web audience is different to that of the newspaper, what the web has shown is that so many of the stories which traditionally appeared in regional newspapers didn’t really get read.

In a bygone era we relied on instinct or newspaper sales spikes (do you remember those?) to form an idea of what our readers wanted.

However, even if we were right about that for a period of time, that news selection passed down through generations of news editors and editors may just be out of step with the rest of the world.

Going deeper into this, the bundling of news into a newspaper is an out-dated concept. As I have said before, it’s all about personal media, not mass media.

So if football match reports fail to grab the audience, do something else. It is clear from the report on Barnet that aspects of the club will be covered, the parts that in many respects the fans are more interested in and will get an audience.

Football fans want so much more than reading about something they have just watched.

A simple match report is all but dead in the water. Football games can be covered live, so why would I want to read a match report hours or even days after?

This is where a football writer now comes into their own. They have to look deeper into the game, look at data, talk to the fans, or a moment in the game and look to expand what happened in that moment which changed the game.

It means football writers have to have a holistic view of the game and look beyond the usual ‘the lads done well quotes’.

What readers are after is the extraordinary, the piece of data or insight which will make them stop and say ‘gee-whizz’.

How many football writers really know everything about the club they report on? Do they understand the finances, the work of the physio, the nutritionist, the groundsman, when was the last time they spoke to a ref?

And remember, in the future all football clubs will provide their own match reports. We are moving faster and faster to the situation that exists in the States where American football clubs provide all the reports and interviews directly to the media without an independent journalist anywhere to be seen.

There is a massive movement towards professionalising media output right across the football world, most clubs will be asking, why do we need to even talk to journalists outside the inner sanctum of the club?

Back to the demand for web hits. It won’t go away, particularly as some senior staff get a bonus based on performance, a case of forget about the quality, go for the numbers, Primark economics.

This goes hand in hand with the demand to make more cash online despite the fact that print still is king on the money front. The solution, casually transfer funds from one to the other, which makes print look like its cash income is declining more rapidly and the web is booming.

It’s a slight of hand. Lies, damn lies and statistics, but if it keeps my former colleagues and friends employed, I can live with it.

If there’s any budding football journos out there who want to get some experience in reporting, I’d bang on the door of Barnet FC.

Stop press: Journalism, digital targets, Towie clap-trap and being blocked on Twitter

Somehow, I feel I ended up in the eye of of storm, or at least a great debate, over my views on the editor’s gut instinct v web analytics. I didn’t know that holdthefrontpage were going to publish comments from my blog, so I was caught off guard when it appeared as the top story.

You will have to trust me when I say that I didn’t ask for the blog to appear, it came as a surprise after I only found out via a text.

My editor's gut instinct story made the lead story on holdthefrontpage and was the most viewed that week.

My editor’s gut instinct story was the lead article on holdthefrontpage and was the most viewed that week.

For the record, a badge of honour, I think, it was the number one viewed story of holdthefrontpage that week, don’t you just love the web…

From the feedback, I feel I need to attempt to clear up some points.

Firstly, I’m not anti-web/digital as suggested by some bloke who doesn’t appear to exist but claims to live in Stoke-on-Trent, where I used to work.

I loved the analytics side of the web. It made me think long and hard about content and not take for granted what stories we should go after.

I spent sometime talking to staff about whether we had the right content online and in the newspaper, often asking whether a story was worthy of our attention, was it the sort of news/features our readers were really interested in?

Often these debates were backed up by the performance of stories online and long discussions on what was the best way to tell a story in this age of multi-skilled, multi-platform journalism.

Another person with a fetish for popcorn commented that they would rather trust figures, obviously they must be an accountant. I agree we can trust the figures online, but my main point is what works well online doesn’t necessarily work well in the newspaper.

So to base editorial decisions on web analytics takes out the part I called ‘gut instinct’. As our popcorn friend overlooked and I explained in some detail, a lot of this instinct is actually based on performance of newspaper sales over time.

Editors know what sells because they have experienced those sales spikes. Where the real instinct comes in is knowing your audience. This is why before the chains were attached 24/7, editors spent hours out in the community talking to people from all walks of life about their lives.

So back to my main point which was that we know the audience for online and newspapers is different. I’ve seen how readers react to stories online through the use of, yes, you’ve guessed it, analytics.

But you must remember, the newspaper audience is different. While the online analytics are a useful tool in making decisions, they should not be used in isolation.

So the outcome of this storm in a tea cup was a mainly thoughtful debate. The most bizarre thing to happen is that one regional newspaper decided after the story appeared to block me re-Tweeting stories from their main account. Not sure if the two things are connected. Strange, but true.

Moving on, there was a lot of debate over Trinity Mirror deciding that journalists should be given digital targets. Roy Greenslade said of the move: “That time-and-motion-study approach to journalism spells the death knell of reporting that takes time and effort.”

I couldn’t put it better myself. It reminded me of the days when the consultants were called in by the old Northcliffe group and started asking how long it took to write a story?

They were surprised when I couldn’t give them a straight answer, similarly in the days when hubs were created I was asked how long it took to sub a page?

The problem is with fewer and fewer traditional journalists in our news rooms, all of them under pressure to get web hits, stories which take time and effort to get will be spiked by hard-pressed newsdesks.

The days of Fourth Estate or investigative journalism have in one stroke been binned by Trinity Mirror as they chase audience figures.

Don’t get me wrong, a reporter should share the responsibility for building its audience online and in the newspaper.

But the great race to grab a unique user with any old spun-out-of-orbit story (probably not even from the circulation area) can only add up to a dramatic decline in traditional journalistic standards.

This brings me back to my earlier theme. Successful stories online are more than often articles with little substance, unchecked, no depth, one-sided, web bait.

It’s a far cry from the days of Woodward and Bernstein with their unwritten ‘three source rule’…

Before I left newspapers, I became increasingly concerned that there were more and more errors as fewer (if any) checks were made.

Stories appeared online with awful mistakes (has anyone read the Mail Online recently?!).

It would seem that we are going to end up with a regional press that serves up what I describe as ‘TOWIE’ news.

Like the programme and so many others of its ilk, it will be shallow, mindless clap-trap and the world of journalism will be a poorer place.

 

 

 

 

 

Time for regional newspapers to unbundle content and turn their back on mass media to help keep journalists in a job

For most of their lives, regional newspapers have bundled content together and thrown it into their products, like chucking paint at a wall.

Should regional newspapers be looking at another way of making money than the tired newspaper/web combination?

Should regional newspapers be looking at another way of making money than the tired newspaper/web combination?

The idea was/is to satisfy all of their customers at once by putting content together from all walks of life, on numerous subjects from a variety of places, in the hope that readers will find comfort from a couple of articles per edition.

This culture was adopted by local newspaper web sites. Lob as much content at the site in the hope of grabbing some readers.

However, there has been little thought to putting these web sites together in terms of content. It has been little more than copy what the newspapers do, bundle it all together.

In fact there has been little thought as to whether the newspaper/web site alliance works together at all.

There is also evidence that people don’t trawl through the web site looking for what they want, why would you if you can do a Google search?

This method of bundling content together is outdated. It has been exposed with the advent of the web because the untold secret is that the majority of people only really read a small proportion of a newspaper and now the same can be said of the web site.

This is one of the reasons for the decline of newspaper sales, the formula doesn’t work for today’s consumers. I often talk about the concept of the end of mass media and the rise of personal media.

Readers simply choose exactly what they want by going to certain web sites or downloading the apps with the content that interests them. They don’t want a mishmash of content which they can’t or won’t navigate through, they don’t have time to sort out the gems of content they are looking for.

Effectively, if they were reading a newspaper they would be binning most of the pages and keeping the one or two pages which have something they may be interested in.

This is also reflected in the number of web pages people visit on regional newspaper sites. If you hit above two to three pages per unique user you are doing well.

So is the model for regional newspapers of a paper and web site the wrong one? Well, audience is growing on these web sites, but the plateau may not be that far away.

They will get their spikes with the odd great story or well-constructed web bait, but is this enough to keep the cash rolling in?

We already know that the Mail Online and The Sun are not hitting the revenue required online to prop up the falling print revenues, the same can be said in the regionals, however the accountants attempt to cover up the cracks.

Web advertising income is up, but that’s inevitable as the print income falls and the newspaper groups throw the kitchen sink at trying to sell online, sometimes even prepared to lose print revenue, just to prove a point.

Just look at Local World’s latest figures. The report boasts of a £43.6m profit. But, as a friend of mine points out, once you remove what the shareholders take off the firm and other costs the profit is just more than £11m.

Then look at the digital revenues, up 22 per cent to £24.6m, the press release screams, but print revenues saw an 8pc decline to…just (just?!)£131.5m, but still generated almost 60pc of the group’s overall revenues of £221m.

Sorry, I digress. Delivering content is now about delivering to a targeted audience. These readers maybe small in number, but they will be profitable for advertisers attempting to reach the readers directly.

I’m sure advertisers are unhappy with the thought that many of their adverts are presently seen by thousands of people who live…across the sea…

So rather than concentrating content online, why not in a dozen or more apps? I’ve already spoken about how health stories are not seen as good for engagement on the web or social media, but the term ‘health’ is too general.

Are all stories about cancer, pregnancy or your local hospital really read by so few people? The answer is no.

So what kind of apps you may ask? In city ‘A’ 12,000 children a year need pre-school education. If all the mums and dads sign up to an education app, financed and paid for by the education authority, plus ads sold on the app to a targeted audience, surely this would work as a business model?

Add a further dozen of these apps for things such as pregnancy, eating out, local shopping and suddenly you have unbundled the news to satisfy your readers and advertisers can be assured that they are hitting a local audience head-on, not from across the sea.

For those who are wondering how their newspapers can be filled, a selection of the app content can be put into the newspaper and dveloped, if required.

OK, I accept this is not a perfect solution but what it allows is for the old newspaper/web business to be more attractive to the modern consumer.

Unbundling content is the way forward. Just think of what all of you do every day. You choose to look at certain web sites and apps looking for certain content.

Regional newspapers and newspaper web sites don’t offer this luxury. Like a teenager on their first date they have been fumbling around for too long looking for a magic formula. They now need to grow up and look for a better/different business model, the lives of so many people depend on it.

Don’t blame the rise of the ‘evil’ web sites for the decline in newspaper sales and jobs of journalists, there are darker forces at work

It’s easy to blame the web for the decline in newspaper sales. Like most industries, there’s always a need to find an easy answer to what went wrong, but this is too simplistic. Why did sales fall off the end of the cliff?

The reality is much more complex than the emergence of the web. The internet wasn’t just switched on in 2006 and the world came to an end. Why 2006?

Having emptied my briefcase for the first time since 1987, I came across some fascinating sales figures from a couple of newspapers I was lucky enough to have worked for.

What they clearly highlight is that for regional newspapers life was pretty rosy until this point.

The rise of web sites isn't the only reason why newspaper sales have declined.

The rise of web sites isn’t the only reason why newspaper sales have declined.

The figures I found, even with the bulks taken out, show that though sales were on the way down, it was a steady, moderate decline, not the 10-20 per cents we are seeing now.

So, from the early 80s until 2006 the average annual sales decline according to my stats was around -2.6% for the newspapers I worked for. Many editors would give their right hand for this result today.

Then we hit 2006. Suddenly the average sale loss hit between six and seven per cent, for some it was even heavier losses.

This became the trend for a few years until around 2012 when newspapers, if they hadn’t already, started hitting the double digit sales decline. Today, other than the odd exception, most of the decline sits unhappily above 10 per cent.

Those which aren’t quite there are often the smaller selling newspapers which have probably hit the plateau of decline. Indeed, if they were in double figures they would be shut or free within a couple of years.

What this decline does show is that the web is not the only excuse for the sales loss. The web has been around for many more years than the last nine years of rapid decline.

I accept that newspapers pay more attention to it than ever before, but that’s because the newspaper sales decline has speeded this process up. What actually happened in those dark days of 2006?

The truth is that the advertising income suddenly collapsed, particularly classified, and owners realised that the regional newspapers were no longer cash cows.

One regional newspaper owner used to call their regional papers the jewel in his crown as the millions rolled in. But it was in 2006 that they suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, the royal visits to the provinces ended, never to return.

With the prospect of incomes on the slide there was an invasion of grey-suited consultants. They entered the offices to start their bean counting. What was sad about the process of dismantling the business was that these poor folk knew nothing about newspapers.

I remember well being questioned why one reporter had only written 10 stories in a month and another 200. The answer was simple.

One was an investigative reporter who helped to jail a county council leader. These kind of stories cannot be knocked out in five minutes, the other reporter was a junior who spent their time banging out nibs.

But they just didn’t get it and asked how many stories could be written in an hour, in two hours. How many pages could be subbed in an hour or a day?

By the way, the target was to sub eight pages a day. I recommend any sub/content editor to see if they can sub eight pages a day based on a reasonably high story count and small ads. It’s really tough, no chance of a lunch break.

So with incomes down, staff cuts, getting rid of editions, reducing the covering of courts and council, reducing pagination, printing on toilet paper, increasing cover price, oh, and a bigger emphasis of the web, sales started to dip dramatically. The perfect storm.

Ok, I can’t hang my coat on any one of these being completely responsible for the sales decline. Collectively, however, they are a potent force. What it does mean, however, is that the evil web is not necessarily to blame.

Equally, the web is not the part of the business which will prop up the newspapers either. Yep, we all know the truth, that however you fiddle the figures or get the poor advertising folk to flog ads online, the chances of making up for print revenue decline via the web is as unlikely as England winning the Ashes this year or anyone considering that George Bush was a great president.

If it could, we wouldn’t have seen the cuts that have really impacted on the business. Peter Preston’s article for the Guardian reinforced this view this week, you can read it here http://bit.ly/1AGm0FA

Peter has viewed the latest figures from Murdoch’s paywall sites and the Mail online. The paywall was designed so that digital money covers the loss of print advertising and cover-price cash. Unfortunately, it’s not working.

At the Mail, growth was scheduled at 40% year on year, to bring in £100m in ads online this financial year and make up for the decline in print revenue.

However,  growth has dropped to 20%, the half-year digital ad take, at £36m, makes £100m seem a distant dream. I don’t have all the figures to hand, but you can only think that this is a similar picture across all national and regional press.

So, I go back to my argument in my last post. Surely, all newspapers need to look outside the newspaper/web model? Specific apps, with great content, written by expert journalists cornering the market in their subject might be the way forward.

Remember, mass media has gone. Personal media is the way forward, so deliver personal media. What do advertisers crave most? They want to know that their adverts and promotions hit the bullseye (target audience) like darts champ Phil ‘the Power’ Taylor in his glory days.

This is what apps can do. Why not give it a go?

Web bait, bounce rates, page impressions…is there a need for greater transparency in regional newspaper web figures?

There will have been the raising of a few glasses of bubbly and pats on the back when the latest web figures for the regional press were revealed recently.

Unique users is only one way regional newspapers can use to measure  audience online.

Unique users is only one way regional newspapers can use to measure audience online.

The amazing year-on-year rise for unique users is laudable, in any other industries they would be handing out bonus payments left, right and centre to the staff.

In the offices of the Manchester Evening News the success was jaw-dropping, an incredible 194 per cent rise in the last year, more success than the city’s most marketable products, its football teams.

Other papers such as the Newcastle Chronicle and Birmingham Mail showed three figure increases. Even my old stomping ground, the Stoke Sentinel hit 88.1 per cent rise, top, top performances.

To be honest, these figures shed sunshine into the pretty gloomy world of the regional press, which has seen circulation decline, a massive reduction in staff and daily cuts in budget.

However, behind the scenes, most newspaper groups may still be worried. Why you may ask? You have to remember that unique users is only one way online audiences can be measured.

The other ways include page impressions, the number of pages the audience views on the web site, time spent on the site and the bounce rate, how much of the audience goes on the site to read one story, but then disappears somewhere else.

In the race to have the biggest online audience and spruce up the odd regional newspaper group for a possible sale, one tactic being used is known as ‘web bait’.

This simply involves putting up a story so tantalising that the audience rushes in…but then disappears down a hole. Have you ever wondered why a story appears on a local web site and it has no connection to the area?

Many a night as I looked despairingly at my web figures did I pluck an obscure story from somewhere else to bolster my uniques. The only criteria was that it was naughty enough to grab a reader.

Sex, bizarre or both, they were the sort of stories I was looking for…

Whether it was local it didn’t matter, my only concern was to ensure I avoided the inevitable ‘why are you so rubbish’ conversation the following morning from those in charge.

The problem is that the audience will jump on board to read the story for a second and then off into the darkness. There’s little or no loyalty.

This method of gaining a crowd cannot be healthy for the longevity of any web site. I hold my hands up, I followed this smash and grab policy despite my better judgement.

To gain an audience to please those to whom I answered,  I gave the nod to using the word Fappening, a mixture of happening and…the rest you will have to look up, but it is to do with sex.

This word was associated with the ‘break-in’ and release from the iCloud of celebrities in the nude. We expertly found that the word Fappening was being used as a search term to find these stories and I recklessly decided to use it to go with the story we were doing, we needed the uniques.

I and my brow-beaten team quickly noticed that the audience numbers were quiet during UK time but once America had woken up our number of unique users went mad.

For 48-hours we were the heroes of the web as the audience just kept popping in. The problem is that most of it came from the United States.

This type of incident has been and still is repeated across regional newspapers when the pressure for unique users becomes intense.

One of the issues for a local advertiser maybe that they may want to know where the audience comes from before they decide to spend their hard-earned…or at least ask a few questions and go further than how many unique users a site has.

The regional gang needs to work-out how to keep the audience for longer.

It would also help if at least the audience came from Britain, unless we expect an American to travel a few thousand miles to pick up a Ford Ka from Joe Blogs Motors of Sleaford?

So, the latest web figures, while celebrated, should also be taken with a pinch of salt and we need to consider whether they are truly accurate and if greater transparency is needed by showing page views, bounce rates and time on site.

It is equivalent to newspaper sales managers having to show what percentage of their sale is bulks.

Just a thought. Here’s the original story from the Press Gazette http://bit.ly/1I0x1nf

Are beautiful redesigns, better quality newsprint and more pages the way to halt decline in newspaper sales?

While all newspapers should be beautifully designed,  it won't stop the sales decline.

While all newspapers should be well designed, it won’t stop the sales decline.

For years I have admired beautifully designed newspapers. I was fortunate to work for some brilliant regional newspaper designers. I’m eternally grateful to them for teaching me the fine art.

I even managed to win a Front Page of the Year award, a proud moment. As I cast my eyes across regional daily papers it is clear there are some fantastic looking newspapers.

Is design important? On a couple of levels, yes. The design sets the tone for the paper and helps readers to navigate around them.

The only problem is that some newspaper groups still think that a new design will drag the readers back and halt the sales decline. Unfortunately, I have not seen any lasting evidence of this.

Any real sales lift comes through short-lived promotions such as buy a paper and get a free chocolate bar which is probably at the end of its sell-by date. Yum.

There is also the idea that a ‘modern’ design will attract new, hopefully younger readers. Once again, where is the evidence?

Is this tinkering while Rome burns?

As an editor and deputy editor, no-one ever rang me or wrote to me complaining about the design, there was never a hint that they didn’t like the colours or lay-out on Page 15.

The only real complaint in this area was from older readers unable to read the paper because the font was too small or the text couldn’t be read on a tint that was printed poorly on low grade newsprint.

On the other side of the coin I had hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints about content. Content is king.

So this brings me to the point. Newspaper designs can be wonderful to look at and the friendly rows I’ve had on the finer points of a pastel shade here or a different font there are memorable.

However, design is something that really only bothers journalists or the hierarchy (attempting to have a pretty looking shop window before a sell-off)  more than its readers.

There is a difficult sum. With a decline in sales there’s a revenue shortfall.

The answer for newspaper groups is to lop a few more pence on the cover price. The outcome is…a further fall in sales.

As an aside, I have always thought that newspapers were too cheap.

But the problem is that they have been cheap throughout time and it is ingrained in readers that they should cost as little as possible.

With this embedded cheap as chips culture, any price rise is looked at as a criminal offence by disgruntled readers who stop buying the product.

The latest ploy by some papers is put the price up, maybe even improve the quality of the paper and then add pages to the paper so it has more of a ‘kill the cat feel’ than the present feather light versions.

However, with fewer staff and more pages to do, the outcome will not really benefit of readers. It just means spreading the content more thinly across more pages.

So what do you end up with? A bigger paper in terms of pages, possibly better quality newsprint, but the same amount of stories spread across more pages and it will cost you more.

Sounds like a bit of a con.

Is this a recipe for success? I’ve been down this road before. It certainly doesn’t provide the answer to how this industry can survive the 21st century.