Sunday vs. Every Day
The current logic is that newspapers are going under because of websites. Personally, I think newspapers are going under because of a lack of websites, namely their own. If the major newspapers were really as good as they claimed to be, they would be offering the best websites out there. The web should be seen as a great expansion of the newspaper business; they don't have to wait until the morning to get their breaking news out there. They can print headlines when they happen and then deliver the full detailed story in the morning. Instead, most newspapers seem to half-ass their websites, especially when it comes to making money.
Take for example (an example to which I often refer), ESPN the Magazine. I don't know anyone who actually reads ESPN the Mag but I know countless numbers of people who get it. Why? Because in order to get access to ESPN's Insider web stories, you have to sign up and pay a small fee. And part of what you pay for is a subscription to the magazine. So ESPN found a way to boost their subscription numbers (which helps boost their ad prices) even though nobody really wants the magazine.
Newspapers should be doing the same thing. You want to read the latest insights from a paper's famous reporters/critics, pay a small fee (which also includes a subscription to the paper). Hell, the New York Times could make some scratch just by offering a second Insider only crossword puzzle every day. Also, these sites should work with the local stations (and some of them already have sister stations) in order to embed some video on their sites. The avenues are out there, newspapers just need to stop sitting at their stands and acting like people are still going to come to them.
Also, the newspaper writer needs to become more of a name. Many political writers are more known as TV celebrities. Most people know them from being on Meet the Press or Fox News; very few people actually read their columns. The paper's need to get a handle on this and use their big name pundits to their advantage. Get them a blog on which they can throw some musings and also pimp out their latest article in the paper. A lot of papers are cutting film critics but that's because they aren't really critics. They just tell me their opinion of a movie which is something I could get from one of my friends or co-workers. Newspapers can dump those reviews on the blog but then publish longer features in the actual paper. Get some interviews with local celebrities or what not. Everyone has an opinion, what newspapers have is access and that's what they should be focusing on.
But if there's one thing that really needs to be revamped, it's the Sunday paper. If newspapers are struggling to stay afloat, what sense does it make to print all of their prime material in one edition? If papers want to help their daily sales, they should spread out the beefed up sections throughout the week. Monday is Sports, Tuesday is Style, Friday is Entertainment, etc. Similarly, some papers also have a Sunday Magazine. Obviously those days are over. Put those stories into the actual paper or just become a weekly publication.
Finally, the major publishers' growing disinterest in newspapers should be a boon for the smaller, local papers. More community papers could pop up or try to expand their scope. Some reports have the local Lawrence Eagle-Tribune doing better than the Boston Globe. It makes sense. You don't really get local news from most blogs and even the nighly local news is too focused on a wide audience to hit many stories in one area. Also, the Eagle-Tribune has cut its staff and gone with a site called Helium to hire out their freelancers for the smaller stories like concert reviews and random human interest stories.
The importance of newspapers has greatly diminished but with a little ingenuity and an acceptance of multi-media as a good thing, newspapers could and should be able to survive in the 21st century.
