I hear a lot of people say, when referring to the print edition of The Star: “There’s no news in there anymore,” or, “It’s getting thinner and thinner.”
Both statements are true to a degree, but only one — “it’s getting thinner” — is substantially correct.
Many readers are under the mistaken impression that, because the paper is significantly thinner and lighter (every day except Sunday, that is) it contains a lot less news.
Not so. The paper has definitely shrunk in size, but that’s mainly because so many advertisers have gone away. At the same time, what we in the business call the “news hole” — the space allotted to text, photos and graphics — has not shrunk nearly as much.
In fact, The Star’s news hole has grown appreciably within the last year, since Publisher Tony Berg added the “In Depth” pullout section, which effectively added two full pages to the paper Tuesday through Saturday. (It’s a four-page section, but one of the four is the editorial page and one is the Op-Ed page.)
What has happened in Kansas City has been mirrored around the country. If you haven’t seen the figures, they are jaw dropping…Over the last 15 years, annual newspaper advertising revenue has dropped from $67 billion nationwide to about $16.4 billion, according to the Newspaper Association of America. With that kind of over-the-cliff performance, newspapers could not possibly continue publishing the hefty, healthy products of past years.
For nearly all newspapers, even the great national papers like The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, prosperity is a thing of the past. Now, a newspaper is considered to be doing pretty well if it is just treading water.
**
As a reporter and later an assignment editor, I never had to concern myself much with the balance between ads and news hole. I remember that we in the newsroom would complain frequently about the relatively small size of the news hole, due mainly to the large number of ads. If we could have peered into the future, we surely would not have complained.
As I recall, the ratio of advertising space to news hole used to run about 60-40. Now, for many papers, those numbers have flipped, or worse.
In an effort to illustrate this phenomenon, I pulled out my green eyeshade and crunched some numbers relating to two sections of today’s newspaper.
The “A” section — which houses the international, national and local news and the editorial and Op-Ed pages — consists of 14 pages. Each page contains about 200 square inches of space, not counting the margins at top, bottom, left and right.
By my calculations, the A section had 2,065 square inches of news and other editorial material, while advertising (including obituaries, which are paid for) accounted for 735 square inches.
That’s a ratio of 74-26 percent, or nearly three square inches of news hole for every square inch of advertising!!
The story is a little brighter in the sports section, which traditionally has had the highest ratio of advertising. There, the ratio of news hole to advertising was only 2 to 1 (1,350 square inches of news and 650 square inches of advertising).
In a way, we here in Kansas City are lucky that the McClatchy Co., The Star’s owner, is allowing The Star this many print pages per day. There’s an expense associated with each page, and that’s the price McClatchy must pay for the newsprint — the actual paper that runs through the presses.
**
The news/advertising ratio greatly influences another major factor in newspapers — story lengths.
When The Star was flush and prosperous, as was the case until about the mid-2000s, dozens of reporters were covering all facets of the community, and all were agitating to get their stories in the paper. As a result, editors had to be ever-vigilant about story lengths. I remember a relatively brief period, back around 2000, when the edict came down that no story could exceed 30 column inches.
That is not very much for an important story requiring substantial explanation. The 30-inch limit generated a firestorm of criticism and squawking from reporters — and rightly so, because big stories often require 50 inches or more. That’s especially true of investigative pieces that have been weeks or months in the making. (I recall one former reporter, Rick Alm, demanding that his byline be taken off a story that editors cut down by more than half.)
With The Star now down to fewer than 25 reporters — and having necessarily reduced its coverage area — there’s less need to keep stories short. In fact, the pendulum has swung wildly in the other direction: Stories are often way too long. Today, for example, on Page 2, The Star ran a nearly 50-inch long story by Judy Thomas on the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph banning a certain person from diocesan property because he had violated “safe boundaries” in his interactions with children.
It struck me as awfully long before I started it, but I kept reading, thinking it must contain something explosive or the diocese’s action was controversial. But no; there was nothing explosive and no controversy. The man, whom The Star did not identify because he is not charged with any crime, blandly accepted the ban.
Now, Judy Thomas is an excellent reporter, but her editors should have reined her in on that story; it deserved no more than 10 to 12 inches, in my opinion.
Elsewhere in the paper, examples of swollen verbiage can be found almost every day on the editorial page. On the left side, where The Star used to (and presumably will again) run relatively short editorials expressing the paper’s official viewpoint on a variety of issues, The Star has been running 30-inch wire-service pieces that take up two full columns. For the most part, it’s been “filler,” rather than meaningful, relevant commentary.
**
All this is to show how the newspaper business has been turned upside down, at least as far as the print product is concerned. As I’ve said before, I’m very grateful The Star still publishes a printed edition every day. With each passing day, though, The Star is shifting its emphasis from print to digital, and I’m girding myself for the day when Tony Berg breaks the news that The Star will no longer be publishing on Monday and Tuesday. Those are the days on which the paper is in danger of flying a couple of houses away after leaving the delivery agent’s hand.
I ask you, 20 years ago who could have foreseen the era of the winged paper?
Good analysis, Jim. Am forwarding to others.
Thanks, Laura…
Gosh, you are quite a quant these days. I agree with Ms. Hockaday, nice analysis. I do have a question about ads and content. My current read, the Financial Times, has almost zero advertising but has glorious content on just about every page. Almost NO features with too many words. At a subscriber cost of no more than the Star. (Well, maybe, if one could ever figure out the Star actual costs.) Does this mean the FT reporters and columnists live in poverty? How do they do it, and why can’t it be done in the US? Maybe the FT owners don’t require a profit? (Let me caution potential subscribers, delivery is notoriously unreliable, totally unacceptable. But a great read when, if ever, it comes to your doorstep. No local coverage, I hasten to add.)
Reading phrases like “quite a quant” just adds to the enjoyment of this blog. :-)
Thanks for the compliment, Bob…(To Gayle’s point, I’d never heard the word quant, as in quantitative analyst.)
Now “How do they do it?” you ask of the Financial Times. I would have thought that as a subscriber you might have done some research and figured that out….Below is a link to a 2010 article that addresses your question.
Essentially, it’s a “mixture of online paywalls, increasing subscriptions and cover prices.” FT also has a 50 percent ownership share (or at least did back then) in another successful financial publication, the Economist.
Here’s that link…
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/05/financial-times-digital-model
I hadn’t wondered how they do it until I read your post, so it didn’t occur to me to investigate further. But thank you for finding that very good piece. I did some additional investigating, properly chastened. FT is now owned by Nikkei, a giant Japanese conglomerate. (Nikkei alone has a circulation of 3 million.) The Economist is owned by The Economist Group so its profits no longer support FT. So FT presumably exists by virtue of its content, and people who will pay the price (and who likely have higher incomes than Star subscribers). I shouldn’t have asked about this so quickly, as the mountain of debt McClatchy has didn’t enter my consciousness until late this morning. I should have realized right away that the Star has to pay for that in addition to paying its staff and printing costs. So jeez, it is a steep hill to climb, even with paywalls and higher subscription prices. I’m really fascinated by your analysis, though. I wish there was a way to sort out quality of content from inches of print. You made a nice start with your post. I gotta think about this.
Late to the article and comment thread, however…I work for a large Federal Department (upward of 50K employees) and every employee can access the Financial Times online, courtesy of our employer.
I’m sure the Department got a “good” rate, but still, one expects a pretty penny was spent. And if other Federal Departments, or NGOs for that matter, have similar arrangements…
We were in the process of taking over the state party when I moved to WYCO in 1996 and a few months after I got there I became chair of the county party. Since I knew virtually nothing about the county I got into the Star’s library (free at the time) and read everything Rick Alm ever wrote about the place. To this day if someone were to ask me what my ideal reporter would look like it would be Rick.
…You gotta get her all down
‘cause she’s bound to go.”
The Gift (lyrics from 1987 song by Ian Tyson)
In old St. Louis over in Missouri
The mighty Mississippi, well, it rolls and flows.
A son was born to Mary Russell
And it starts the legend every cowboy knows.
Young kid Russell was born to wander.
Ever westward he was bound to roam,
Just a kid of sixteen in 1880.
Up in wild Montana he found his home.
God made Montana for the wild man,
For the Piegan and the Sioux and Crow,
Saved His greatest gift for Charlie,
Said, “Get her all down before she goes.
You gotta get her all down
‘cause she’s bound to go.”
God hung the stars over Judith Basin.
God put the magic in young Charlie’s hands.
And all was seen and all remembered,
Every shining mountain, every longhorn brand.
He could paint the light on horsehide shining,
The great passing herds of the buffalo,
And a cow camp cold on a rainy morning,
And the twisting wrist of the Houlihan throw.
God made Montana for the wild man,
For the Piegan and the Sioux and Crow,
Saved His greatest gift for Charlie,
Said, “Get her all down before she goes.
You gotta get her all down
‘cause she’s bound to go.”
When the Lord called Charlie to his home up yonder
He said, “Kid Russell, I got a job for you.
You’re in charge of sunsets up in old Montana
‘Cause I can’t paint them quite as good as you,
And when you’re done, we’ll go out and have a few,
And Nancy Russell will make sure it’s just two.”
God made Montana for the wild man,
For the Piegan and the Sioux and Crow,
Saved His greatest gift for Charlie,
Said, “Get her all down before she goes.
You gotta get her all down
‘cause she’s bound to go.”
Now we know where “the Houlihan throw” came from…
Now I think you and Mr. Remuda have been drinking.
That’s what he said about my post on the last column. Serves him right, karma’s a bitch.
I know, I was paying him back for you.
Gotta watch my back…Conspirators all around.