The End of Dailies

Hastened by the economic and credit crisis, we are moving ever closer to a moment of catastrophe for one or more major daily newspapers. Sometime in the next few months, we're going to lose one–or it's going to be changed so radically as to be barely recognizable under the current definition of daily newspaper. And given the lemming-like tendencies of the newspaper industry, once one newspaper goes, others will quickly follow.

Call it the End of Days–or of Dailies.

This calamity could take one of several forms, ranging from a significant change in presentation of a paper to outright extinction. Critics of recent newsroom cutbacks would argue that staff reductions already have significantly changed the quality and personality of many papers. But we ain't seen nothing yet. Here are some scenarios, in ascending order of severity:

Shrinkage I–We've already seen newspapers beginning to cut back on the number of sections they publish–the New York Times recently shrank to four from six sections, and the new Chicago Tribune redesign is down to three sections. And the Tampa Tribune just switched to a single-section design. The section-shrinkage strategy is well underway. Taken to it logical end, this could mean that the printed newspaper eventually becomes a brief overview of the day's news, for readers who still want a print edition, with the bulk of the news report (and hopefully advertising) shifting online.

Shrinkage II–Most major daily papers are broadsheets. But tabloids are cheaper to print. In Europe, many papers have switched from broadsheet to tabloid size ("format" may not be the right word!). Look for it happen here, to save production and distribution costs. Indeed, the Lafayette, Ind., Journal & Courier switched to the tabloid-like Berliner format two years ago. This is the logical extension of the inch-here, inch-there page trims that many papers have implemented in the past couple of years to cut costs.

Shrinkage III–When is a daily newspaper not a daily newspaper? When it only publishes a handful of days a week. Don't laugh; I hear it's being serious discussed at at least one big paper. Imagine cutting back to, say, Sunday, Friday and Wednesday circulation, to capture the biggest advertising days while eschewing the others. We've seen the first vestiges of this–papers killing their Saturday or even Monday editions. But some paper may decide that the cost-cutting numbers work to switch to three or four days a week. Or even Sunday-only. The paper's Web site would handle the daily news. (What a concept!)

Bankruptcy–Unable to cut costs as quickly as revenues are falling, facing the same economic and credit challenges that are roiling the rest of American businesses (and particularly vulnerable because of concurrent cutbacks by strapped advertisers) and trapped, in many cases, in overleveraged loans taken out to buy newspapers back when things looked better, many newspaper companies have hit a sort of perfect storm of financial peril. Owners in Minneapolis and Philadelphia already are behind on loan payments. Papers in San Francisco and Newark are bleeding tens of millions of dollars a year (and those are just the ones we know about). McClatchy, still suffering from massive indigestion from its acquisition of Knight Ridder, just restructured its debt. Newspaper company corporate debt is facing downgrades in an already tough credit market. Stocks in most publicly owned chains are plumbing all-time lows–or worse, being delisted by stock markets. These are not good signs. Some–though not all–of these publishers are on the razor's edge, and we're likely to see bankruptcy filings by one or more in the next few months. It may be all but inevitable for those carrying massive amounts of debt. That, in turn, could set off whole new rounds of cutbacks. Best case, maybe: Vulture investors move in to grab newspaper assets for pennies on the dollar. Trust me, they'll run them as cheaply as they can, and today's reduced budgets may look generous.

Shutdown–Some publishers may choose to just turn out the lights, shut down the presses and lock the door. That's exactly what Advance is threatening in Newark. Not a lot of people think Hearst will continue to tolerate $1 million weekly losses in San Francisco. There are doubtless other bleeders we don't even know about. It's tough to hear, but make no mistake: Some papers will go out of business.

Yes, this is scary stuff. It's not getting better, and contrary to William Dean Singleton's cockeyed optimism, an improvement in the economy–whenever it comes–won't rescue many newspapers. The fundamental structural shifts in the industry's business model are too profound. Newspapers that emerge from this crucible will be leaner, less frequent and Web-centric–and they may not even be available in print. Some will survive, but some won't. That sounds pessimistic–but I haven't talked to anyone recently who follows the industry closely and sees it any different. Everybody agrees: The next few months will be bloody–bloodier than anyone could have predicted even a few months ago. We're facing the beginning of the End of Dailies.

PS: Philip Meyer, who wrote "The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age," comes to similar conclusions.

Comments

[David Adams]

In Kentucky, state law still mandates government posting of public notices in the form of paid advertising in newspapers. If that law -- and others like it elsewhere -- were repealed in the interest of government belt-tightening it seems that it would have an interesting impact on the industry that is worthy of consideration. I think what it would do here is decimate the smaller papers which depend very heavily on this revenue. Then the market would be flooded with experienced reporters who might then be hired at larger papers for less money than they are used to shelling out to hire a reporter. In this way, the reduced competition from small papers and lower labor costs could serve as a lifeline for bigger papers.

Agree?

[Mark Potts]

David:
Interesting question. I suspect the newspaper interests at the state and local level will fight this very hard, and since local publishers are often cozy with local leaders, they may be able to retain the legal advertising--which in these digital days is almost totally an anachronism, since those notices are easily posted on government Web sites.

That said, I'd argue your second point in the other direction: I think the market is now being flooded by experienced reporters from major papers doing cutbacks and layoffs, and that we'll see a lot of those folks redistributed to smaller publications.

[David Adams]

Thanks Mark. I'm sure you are right -- on both counts.

Some of the newspaper folks here get a little crazy when this subject comes up, but it may be that with less food to go around the table the politicians could decide to live with the idea that feeding their friends at the papers is just too expensive.

http://kyprogress.blogspot.com/2008/10/setting-off-dead-tree-cannibalism.html

[Ned23]

I think your headline is only partly correct, and you should have added "as We Know Them."

I don't take issue with your post, but with the comparatively small aperature of your vision. Dailies, as we know them -- as we grew up, loved and slaved at -- are disappearing. Publishing the news will not disappear.

[JD Mullane]

Yikes! I better get to work on my best selling novel, quick!

[James]

Christ, it's depressing - isn't it? I am studying for the NCTJ qualification in the UK and will be hunting for newspaper jobs...what a time to be in that position.

The idea of local and national newspapers, in the UK or States, dying is a very depressing thought.

[J.D. Mullane]

Go to India. I read that the newspaper business over there is robust. Adverstising revs up something like 30 percent in the last year.

[John Welsh]

I guess we always knew that disintermediation would happen. But we thought that structural reasons (readers moving online) would create the pace. What we never recognised was how cyclical reasons(the economic downturn) would soon take over and set the speed.