Print
Email
Editor's note: This is the fifth of a series of articles on the financial crisis facing The Seattle Times. Below are additional thoughts by Ross Anderson, Jean Godden, Mark Matassa, and Peter Lewis.
Until the strike of 2000-01, I fully expected to retire from The Seattle Times. I really loved it. Though it was far from perfect, the editors in the latter decades of the 20th century assembled an impressive roster of talent. I came of age surrounded by some of the giants of Seattle journalism, starting work there at age 27 in 1985 and leaving as a seasoned 43-year-old in 2001. It was wonderful. I worked in news graphics, on the general news desk, in metro, in features, and in business. I designed the front page, edited local news, and covered media and aviation safety. It was a dream job.
I still count dozens of people there as friends, and I feel for them with this week's announcement of layoffs. It's tragic. The Seattle Times does a whole lot of heavy journalistic lifting but locally gets not nearly enough credit as the most influential news outlet in the Northwest. (Sorry, Oregonian and P-I, but it's true. For starters, seven Pulitzers.) Whatever you think of the paper, there are some very smart and hard-working people there, some of whom have risked health and life to cover the news and most of whom have worked long, disruptive hours for less money than you might think to put out one of the best papers of its size in the country.
The Seattle Times is the best we've got around here, and it's in peril.
I'm hereby convening the Seattle Times Alumni Association to brainstorm ways of pulling the newspaper out of the quicksand. It's not a hopeless case, but between the global circumstances of the newspaper business and some not-so-smart business decisions by the Seattle Times Co., the situation is pretty dire. I'm going to offer some radical suggestions for transforming the place. Then some former colleagues are going to weigh in. And you readers can have a shot in the comments below. This article will evolve in coming days, so stay tuned.
Here's my rescue plan:
Switch to free distribution at newsstands and double the circulation. Raise the price of home delivery. Keep raising it until it's cheaper for people to buy and own an iPhone. Full speed ahead on delivery of information to mobile devices and customized news, both pushed and displayed on the Web site.
Shift the emphasis of advertising sales staff to the Web. Continue to serve present print-edition advertisers, and don't turn away anyone who walks in the door, but focus all cold calls on Web ad sales. Help local businesses get online.
Stop trying to be a full-service news product. Make the Web site an indispensable guide to everything online, but don't try to create and provide everything.
Make the print edition a quick, portable guide to what's on the Times Web site. Run only the most compelling stories at length in print.
Drop all news services but the Associated Press regional wire. Aggregate the national and world news – summarize and link to the articles on other sites – and republish those summaries in the print edition, directing print readers to top-notch aggregation at the Web site.
In terms of original content, focus on core competencies: local and state news, business, sports, and investigations. Get back to basics on beat coverage. Don't be afraid to actually cover a meeting or news event. Own the City Hall, Port of Seattle, and Gates Foundation beats. Stop covering spot crime and traffic accidents. Let TV and radio do that. Write more about education, health, and science.
You've got two blogging stars – David Postman and Geoff Baker. Find some more. Is it time for the columnists to shift their emphasis to blogs? Hire freelance bloggers in major neighborhoods and the suburbs.
Stop writing about food, movies, TV, gardening, and outdoors. Arts and lifestyle subjects, unfortunately, are topics too fragmented for big newspapers to cover well. Own a few areas of intense local interest with immersed experts when you have them. Otherwise, be a guide to coverage of those arts and lifestyle areas by others.
Enter into a joint venture with one of the evolving events Web sites. Leverage the readership. Be more like Trip Advisor and less like TV Guide. Speaking of which, drop the TV listings.
Stop going to Paris and Rio. Focus travel coverage on places you can get to in a day of driving. That would be the Pacific Northwest. Write about it like it's the exotic place it is, then resell those stories to media in other parts of the country.
Refocus the investigative reporting. If it's not a story with high local impact or a big local target, forget it. Focus on the institutions in our backyard. What others besides the Port of Seattle and the Huskies are ripe for scrutiny?
Cut back the editorials from two to one per day. Don't run anything on the editorial page that isn't local. Run more reader-generated material. Provide an aggregated guide to the best commentary elsewhere on the Web.
In the old days, people received on their doorstep once a day a self-contained guide to life. Some still want that, but few people live that way anymore. Go where the eyeballs are – online. Stop spending time doing things others do better at the national level.
I'll stop there. What else?
Small town papers are thriving because they're essential
From Ross Anderson (Seattle Times 1971-2001): I made two excellent decisions during my 30-year newspaper career. The first was to go into daily newspapering in 1970 - just before the Watergate scandal launched journalism into one last glory period of prosperity and professional prestige. The second was to get out in 2001 - so I would not have to stay and watch them die.
The death spiral at The Seattle Times and other metro dailies carries an air of inevitability. But it's worth noting the economics of some 7,000 American newspapers, mostly small town weeklies, which are doing just fine. Take, for example, the weekly Port Townsend Leader, where I write a now-and-then column. Each week, the Leader sells 8,400 papers in a county of 30,000 people and 12,000 households - an amazing market penetration of 70 percent. And it makes money.
Maybe the economic grim reaper is taking a little longer to find us out here in the provinces. Or perhaps weeklies are providing something not found in metro dailies, or the Internet. Weeklies, after all, face the same competition. Most of us out here have cable TV and computers with high-speed Internet. Many of us get a Seattle daily or The New York Times delivered, as well. So why pay six bits a week for the local weekly?
Because weekly newspapers understand that journalism, like politics, starts at home. The Leader offers no national or world news; that we get from NPR, CNN, or online. But it makes itself indispensible by printing the information people need - high school sports and movie times, agendas for this week's school board and city council meetings, ferry schedules and tide tables, calendars of upcoming lectures and charity auctions and upcoming night classes on diesel maintenance or Internet marketing.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 9, 4:23 p.m. Inappropriate
don't shorten the paper: I'm a subscriber to the Seattle Times - and apparently a 41 year old dinosaur but I really prefer a paper edition that I can read while eating breakfast with the kids and after dinner as opposed to something that just refers you to online content. I've noticed that the Times has already started referring readers to the web to find some of their stories and I find it really annoying - I don't want to have to add a second step in order to read something. It's great having a hard copy to look at - my kids will see the pictures and headlines and ask questions about what they see. I agree with the comments to beef up local coverage. I also love the NW Life section and the Food section.
Posted Wed, Apr 9, 6:16 p.m. Inappropriate
A long Times ago: Chuck, your recommendations for saving the Times are spot on.
However, your claim that the Times is the most important paper in the northwest might have been true 10 or 15 years ago, but the PI has since taken over.
The Times may have won 7 Pulitzer prizes, but the last one was in 1997. Since then, the PI has won 2.
The Times certainly has some talented writers. But their editorial voice has grown steadily more cautious over the years, and seems primarily motivated by the fear of offending its more conservative readers, not to mention Frank Blethen. How much do you want to bet they endorse John "let's not ruffle any feathers" McCain?
The Times has no idea what to do about the Internets. This is a paper that waits until the print edition is out to update their RSS feeds. Meanwhile the PI has assembled hundreds of bloggers, both amateur and professional, allows users to personalize their home page, and regularly scoops the Times on local news, published in blogs or the news section.
As far as I'm concerned, the more local newspapers, the better, so I hope they turn things around. It's not clear they have the leadership over there they would need to do that.
Posted Wed, Apr 9, 6:17 p.m. Inappropriate
Why don't you ask the customers (readers, advertisers) what the Times should do?: Sam Walton always told bitter competitors that he didn't shut down their businesses--"Your customers shut you down."
Why are you asking former Times writers and not the customers who keep the paper open for business? Are you soliciting comments from the Teamsters, mailroom workers, or just journalists?
Posted Wed, Apr 9, 8:25 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: A long Times ago: One more thing - the PI has "Sound Off", which regularly generates more comments than any of the local blogs. Astonishingly, the Times still doesn't provide a way for readers to comment on their articles and editorials.
It seems to me the Blethens are either in major denial about where things are heading, or they are simply incapable of a paradigm shift after doing things the same way for so many generations.
I'd love to hear your insider's opinion about the source of organizational disfunction over there, but I know you journalists like to keep that kind of stuff "in the family".
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 7:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Well, OK, but there are only 215,000 of you, and to survive, the Times needs far more people to read the news, people who don't want a printed newspaper.
As to your other question, I'm happy to hear from non-journalists about what could be done.
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 8 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Why don't you ask the customers (readers, advertisers) what the Times should do?: This comment is right on target - the audience that should be asked is advertisers. The Times has done some things to reach out to advertisers, for example sponsoring some Seattle Direct Marketing Association events. They are trying the Shop South King County section. However, these are only a start, they have a lot of work to do to be leaders in advertising solutions.
There was a suggestion above of "give away the paper for free." For advertisers, this is not necessarily a big deal. The additional readers who get the paper for free may or may not be people who will buy your products or services. If the cost of advertising goes up, for example because of having to print more inserts for all the free papers, going to free circulation might tip the balance so the advertisers would not want to advertise after all. This would be the worst of all worlds: no subscription revenue, and less ad dollars too.
The ad business has been driven by three main sectors: autos, employment, real estate and then other types of consumer spending like furniture, electronics etc. Somehow they need to be the best at delivering customers in those sectors, which is very hard given who they are competing against: not only Google and Craigslist, but also Monster and Hotjobs, a ton of real estate sites including the realtor's own web sites, the email lists the electronic companies are building, etc.
This is a formidable challenge, and lots of very well funded startup companies as well as many major players are trying to figure out the solutions. Somehow newspapers need to band together, as they in some cases are starting to do, to keep their advertising solutions relevant and competitive.
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 8:30 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Why don't you ask the customers (readers, advertisers) what the Times should do?: Great points. I would only add that urban weeklies have had success with free distribution for many years.
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 8:30 a.m. Inappropriate
The News Side: A while ago (maybe last summer), Mike Fancher and Mike Lindblom of the Times spoke at a meeting of the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition. We had a very positive discussion about the news business. A few things stood out from the conversation:
1. People had lots of suggestions - but many of them were already being done. For example, the idea of "get the newspapers into the classroom" - there are lots of ads for the Newspapers in Education program.
2. What activists want is not what the public wants or has time to absorb. Newspapers sometimes get criticized for being too brief, but how many readers even read the continuation on inside pages of longer stories?
3. Lots of people wanted more coverage on their favorite topic. Again there's only so much space.
4. Some people only buy the paper for sports or for food. I mentioned the areas I read, and the areas my wife reads, and Mr Fancher had instant classifications. The Times can't afford to lose out on any of these classifications - each has value to marketers.
==
I gave some comments to Mr Fancher. I don't recall all of them, but here are a few:
1. More than ever, people need an objective source to go to.
2. More than ever, people want instant correction of assertions and multiple perspectives. So, the PI's SOund Off as mentioned above is a huge help because instantly you can get perspectives and links to more details. No need to hope a letter to the editor makes it through the filtering process.
3. Context is very important. Searching in the archives for past stories is very hard: search for "Sound Transit" and try to find the important depth articles, they are buried by all the trivia of "today they dug more in Beacon Hill." The archiving and searching needs a lot of improvement.
4. The linear print model is a very poor way to communicate some types of information. There have been certain instances when the papers appear to have been completely snowballed by the spin of certain public agencies. Together, these make it really hard to take what one reads seriously.
Mike Lindblom's coverage of the roads and transit this past year was a notable example of excellent depth. Yet, making sense of comparative numbers buried in paragraphs is really hard. Occasionally there will be some sort of a data table, but these often seem to be an after thought. They take a lot of space in print.
Online, the space is not really an issue for data tables. So, including a lot more of them would be very feasible. The question is: who do you write for first, online or print?
The recent story of Brightwater is a perfect example of how the depth we need to understand some of these projects has simply not been present over the years. During the planning years, there was never a good solid look at what drives the cost estimates, of what the risk factors really are, and of what the alternatives were besides building up a major plant. The PI did have a story about the distributed approach used in Japan, but that was the only one.
Somehow, newspapers need to rethink how they present information.
5. On the editorial side, my respect for the Times has gone way, way down.
In the case of the Port of Seattle over the years, they have bought Mic Dinsmore's lies, they have given Pat Davis a free ride, they have never tried to determine whether the Port was truthful about the assertions of bad weather at Seatac resulting in the need for a supplemental "third" runway.
In general, the data they present is skimpy with no links to the sources. The inability to comment drives users to SOund Politics, Horses Ass, etc.
At the Times online, it appears ego is driving ad dollars away.
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 9:49 a.m. Inappropriate
One word: Business: The Puget Sound Business Journal is the reference newspaper for business in this area. They do a fantastic job I'm willing to pay to see and, judging by the fact they are on the desks of nearly everyone whose offices I visit, lots of other people are also willing subscribers. PSBJ weaves a macro and micro view into their stories that provides a nice snapshot of business in this area.
Contrast that with either Seattle newspaper. As someone who is frequently quoted on biotech issues in both papers, I guess I shouldn't complain too much. But I also see way too many wire stories on news from local companies. Some of this has to do with the fact editors seem unwilling to leave a reporter on the business beat for very long. It's a tough beat, especially in this high-tech area, for the typical J-school graduate. That means you have to leave someone there for a while before they really hit their stride as a reporter.
And I'm not talking about Boeing and Microsoft coverage. Both appers usually do a good job on both. But this area has an incredibly diverse and vibrant business community and I rarely see that reflected in the business sections.
I think it's a worthwhile beat that should be improved. Boosting business coverage may not survey well with the average home reader, but it will help attract a good advertiser demographic (business executives and managers). What's required is a consistent, multi-year effort to make the business section a "must read" for local businesspeople like the WSJ is on the national level.
Posted Thu, Apr 10, 11:27 a.m. Inappropriate
Not surprised it is doing the 'slow slide' into the Sound...: I am in my mid-30's, female, have a young child, married, my household has above average income for the area (slightly), homeowner, and I read the paper everyday! (My husband does too.) Actually, I DAILY read the Seattle PI (is it even my homepage), the Seattle Times, Everett Herald, and Crosscut. There are other blogs and things related to my interests that I also read a couple times a week.
I also use Craigslist (and have extensively for like 6 years now) to buy and sell all kinds of stuff. One would think that I am the type of target market they would like as a reader. However, as I have told them every time they call to 'receive it delivered free for 2 weeks' (for the last 8 years!?!) is that I have no interest in having papers pile up in my house, and my husband is really opposed to the waste of trees. However, feel free to either charge me to read it online (might not fly with some people) or make better ads online. I do not see why there isn't a big ad section where you can flip through the ads like a paper version (this is already a common app in flash with many 'off the shelf' solutions being had cheap). If you put some coupons in there, or advertisers had a flash game (like McDonald's new pinball thing for their coffee) I would check it out as part of my daily paper reading.
Also, I agree with much of what has been said previously about the aggregated news. In Crosscut's format it works, however, I should not see the same story (with the same exact take and info and author) in both the Seattle PI and the Times for like half of their news. Give your own spin on it, or like has been suggested do some local real news and sell it to other people. I am often amazed at how the local news channels can consistently beat you with coverage when they are on only a couple times a day and you can post at anytime time. Just my two cents.
As for the Craigslist, you must have had your head in the sand. Craigslist makes money. They charge businesses, employers, etc. but regular sale ads are free. If you did this, you would have traffic as people go where the selection is. I often buy $5 or $10 used toys that no one could pay to advertise as it stands now in the paper. However, if you had a Craigslist type system, more people would advertise and then more traffic and you could charge more for online advertising to businesses. It seems obvious to me, but then again I am not a journalist, but your customer.
Posted Fri, Apr 18, 3:08 p.m. Inappropriate
The Times: good for wrapping dead fish: As far as I'm concerned the only useful thing about The Seattle Times is their newly added NY Times crossword puzzle. The remainder of the paper is trash and filled with nothing but fluff. They sat by and watched President Bush make a shambles of the Constitution, start a needless war and break numerous laws. Each day I look at the front page expecting, hoping for some response, some story about our presidents abuses of power and each and every day I am disappointed. Both papers now include the puzzle so if they fold, not a big deal I can read to National Inquirer if I want that kind of "news".