http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/ Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:25:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-1391 Suffering Circulator Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:15:40 +0000 http://timwindsor.com/?p=365#comment-1391 I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not. I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.

]]> http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-1271 Suffering Circulator Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:15:40 +0000 http://timwindsor.com/?p=365#comment-1271 I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not. I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.

]]> http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-94 Suffering Circulator Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:15:40 +0000 http://timwindsor.com/?p=365#comment-94 I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not. I applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.

]]> http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Covering Ourselves - Worts and All - DigitalEdge Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:15:32 +0000 http://timwindsor.com/?p=365#comment-92 [...] Windsor has a slightly different take on [...] [...] Windsor has a slightly different take on [...]

]]> http://timwindsor.com/2008/10/29/we-still-talk-about-circulation-because-circulation-still-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-87 example of bad news business letter | Bookmarks URL Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:52:42 +0000 http://timwindsor.com/?p=365#comment-87 [...] We still talk about circulation because circulation still counts The past 12 years had nothing but bad news for print circulation (4); Newspaper circulation: Now can we call this a crisis? (4); New Business Models for News: The opening salvo (0); Greenslade: Don’t blame newsrooms for the decline in … [...] [...] We still talk about circulation because circulation still counts The past 12 years had nothing but bad news for print circulation (4); Newspaper circulation: Now can we call this a crisis? (4); New Business Models for News: The opening salvo (0); Greenslade: Don’t blame newsrooms for the decline in … [...]

]]>