Whither the Times and P-I?

A Times/P-I telemarketer called last night asking us to renew our subscription. She offered us a hell of a deal--a full week of either paper if we just paid for weekends.

When we said no to that, she offered us the Sunday paper for $1/week.

One buck? After circulation, marketing, costs, what can they make on that? 10 cents? Less? Why don't they just make the damn thing free?

Anyway, we had to break the truth to our very polite and competent telemarketing friend--it ain't the money.

It's only $15/month to subscribe to the Times or P-I. We'd happily pay $50/month, if either paper had an interesting point of view, or a kick-ass sports section, or came without the 17,000 inserts that compel us to take the recycling out every other day.

Seems to us the papers need to go one way or the other--make their product free, or improve the quality to the point that people are willing to pay much more for it.

We'd go for quality...right now they practically are giving it away, and apparently no one wants it.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Seth in News on June 2, 2006 10:36 AM

Comments [rss]

James Callan

There's probably room in the mass market for one or maybe two newspapers to pursue objective journalism -- say, the NY Times and USA Today. And maybe room in Seattle for one newspaper to do the same.

But when too many newspapers compete to be the same thing, there's one winner and a bunch of also-rans. The best way to compete against Starbucks or McDonald's or Microsoft is to offer something different, not to beat them at their own game. So it seems to me the best way to compete against the Seattle Times is to do something different -- be more opinionated, be more of an advocate, be more local, whatever. Just don't be the Times Jr. This is possible without stooping to falsification or yellow journalism.

James

Why would newspapers be better off as a mouthpiece for an agenda? These days, wouldn't it just alienate half the audience right off the bat? And, we've got plenty of agenda mouthpieces out there already; shouldn't there be some demand for a product that prioritizes truth over agenda?

These are not arguments, but actual questions. I don't know if there really is room for that sort of thing anymore.

Seth

The ad inserts are the very reason why I don't want the Sunday paper. Seems to me that the Times is forgetting who its customers are--readers, not advertisers.

Bruno

Kurt's right -- they want to pump up the circulation numbers so they can jack up their ad rates. But if they give it away for free, then it's harder to measure actual circulation (just ask the folks over at The Stranger or the Weekly).

So they have to charge a trivial sum of some kind. Then they can make their money on ad sales.

Seth

Don't know what crawled up that guy's ass, but my telemarketer was very nice. I told her that it had nothing to do with money, but that I simply didn't read the paper.

I don't think newspapers are done, but I do think they need to reinvent themselves as what they formerly were--mouthpieces for some agenda or other. Those were the good times.

donte

i got my call last week. after telling the guy on the other end of the line that i get my news online, he just wouldn't let up. he even tried to convince me that the newspaper was just as timely as online news. he finally gave up, but not after both of us were frustrated. newspapers, i hasten to call you "old media" since i don't think your time of relevance is quite done, but the "old marketing" hard sell has got to go.

Kurt

Major newspapers make an average of over $3.00 for every Sunday paper sold, so they are making plenty of money selling it for $1.00 a week. It's all about advertizing and circulation.