Newspaper Newsroom Investment

A new wrinkle on downsizing began in 2005 and will become more visible in 2006 and beyond. That is to reduce newshole, sometimes in tandem with trimming the width or weight of the paper. With newsprint prices on the rise to the tune of nearly 10% both in 2005 and 2006, it is an obvious place to turn for savings.

Usual targets for a deep slash are stock tables and TV listings. The Seattle Times eliminated Sunday tables in January 2005; the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and Newsday announced cutbacks in tables in January 2006.

Cutting tables and TV listings is also easier to manage in the newsroom than cutting room for stories or cutting people. Yet cuts in such material are also probably even more noticeable to the public, and thus could accelerate the effect on circulation and advertising. On the other hand, papers can rightfully argue that all of that material is easily found elsewhere, and if a paper wants it to be, on its own Web site.

Regardless, it is a trend to watch because staff and space reductions tend to be reinforcing. Reduce the newshole by 10% and, executives can argue, you logically don’t need as many people to fill it. By our scan, few if any editors or executives are directly claiming that less is more, but a number do claim that targeted content reductions will not be missed much. Maybe — but the concurrent claim that the most ambitious reporting and consistently careful editing can be kept seems unlikely.

If people are asked to do more in the same amount of time, there is ample evidence in business literature and in academic research on journalism that quality suffers and that readers notice. The other problem is that the tradeoff doesn’t apply if the paper is trying to offer more depth online, including some of the things that are being cut from the print edition .

Several newspapers undertook redesigns in which condensed format and quick reads played a part. Most closely watched were changes at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, under study and development for more than a year with help from the Readership Institute at Northwestern University , before its introduction in the fall of 2005. In a general way it mandated much more rigorous attention to capturing reader interest, both with story selection and execution and design elements.17

The Baltimore Sun and St. Louis Post-Dispatch both did major makeovers. They solicited reader comment and got a deluge of objections from traditionalists who thought the new look was dumbed-down.

Meanwhile 2005 marked another year in which conversions to tabloid or other reduced-sized formats remained a worldwide trend in which American publishers participated only in a small way. Especially in Great Britain , those making the change have recorded circulation gains — but at significant expense in converting presses and at least transitional reductions in advertising rates.

The Harrisburg Patriot-News, an Advance paper, began in July offering readers a choice between broadsheet or tab, with slight differences in content, too. The tab alternative never got as high as 10% of total print circulation and was abandoned in October with the curt explanation that “it didn’t catch on.”18

Gannett announced that its 37,000-circulation Journal Courier in Lafayette , Ind. , would convert to Berliner format (a taller and narrower tab format) when new presses were installed in August 2006.19