Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Next Will Come No-Newspaper Markets, Says New York Times Story
I figured "Sportsbook" as possibly a newspaper insider, but probably not with the U-T. His comment about newspapers "paying off family members (GRRRR)..." kind of begged the question as to who, exactly, David Copley would have in his "family" to pay off?— March 16, 2009 3:31 p.m.
Newspapers Should Go Totally Online, Says Writer for Business Week Magazine
Response to post #10: "...some big papers will be going [to]... (maybe just Sundays)..." Don, I think that's really important to emphasize. There's a reason our Sunday papers are still packed with advertising inserts-- It's the one day we all have to sit down at our leisure and thoroughly read our newspapers. And businesses know their inserts will get read on that day also. I think that's a key element that would make Sunday-only newspapers still very profitable. Especially when their USPS mail-only competitors for that insert business cannot deliver to the home on Sundays, when people take the time to read that stuff!— March 16, 2009 1:52 p.m.
Next Will Come No-Newspaper Markets, Says New York Times Story
I recall that back in 2000, many were asking how anyone could not have seen the severe decline in the promise of the internet, following the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Isn’t it interesting how we’re now looking back 5 years further, at 1995, and asking how newspapers were unable to see the bright future of the internet? It's always something! No doubt newspapers have traditionally been slow movers on many fronts. I think if the Titanic were a newspaper, it would have been unable to swerve at all and struck that iceberg head on! But let’s not single just them out as being unusually short-sighted about the world-wide web, when so many other industries out there are still struggling to create new business models to adapt to it. How many “pure play” businesses are there, that are still not even profitable themselves? I don’t know the answer to that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that percentage was considerably higher than the percentage of “unprofitable” newspapers operating today. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, some newspaper is going to hit upon the model that’s been eluding them all, and things will turn around. “News” is too much in demand for them to let things be otherwise. And I agree with the comments here about most newspaper website designs. Whatever your opinion about sites like “Drudge,” they are easy reading because they present the news as most readers want it— with just headlines first, for quick scanning.— March 13, 2009 1:24 p.m.
Next Will Come No-Newspaper Markets, Says New York Times Story
Response to post #4: Wow Don, you're good! From your list here, exactly 9 of these are in the Top 100 (source: burrellesluce.com). So my original statement stands corrected! But, given that 6 of these 9 are all parties to a single bankruptcy (Tribune Co.), I'd like to request at least partial credit for still being able to count on one hand the number of bankruptcies that involve top 100 dailies (4).— March 12, 2009 3:27 p.m.
Next Will Come No-Newspaper Markets, Says New York Times Story
Hmmmm... so I guess by a "NO-newspaper market," that would necessarily mean for San Diego: No Union-Tribune, no North County Times, no La Jolla Light, no READER, etc., etc., etc...! Sounds a bit too pessimistic, even for this blog! "(Many big papers are now operating in bankruptcy)"? Not sure HOW MANY constitutes "many," but I think I can count on one hand the number of the 100 largest papers in the U.S. that are actually "in bankruptcy" right now. In the future, perhaps more, but right now I think "a couple" and not "many" is much more accurate.— March 12, 2009 10:33 a.m.
If 3 Major Dailies Are Worth $22 Million, What Is U-T Worth?
Don: I think we'd agree that Denver and Seattle are special cases, in that those two newspapers were both the smaller of the two large metro dailies in their respective markets, so they had competitive issues that most other newspaper markets don't face today-- at least I don't hear the Seattle Times or Denver Post saying, "we're next!" As you well know, there has been no Union and Tribune here for a very long time, but that has nothing to do with the disappearance of newspapers overall-- just afternoon ones. San Francisco too is special, in that their financial woes go back more than a decade, well before the key financial issues facing papers today fully emerged. Newspapers surely have taken more than their share of the hit on stock prices, even as those prices across all industries are tumbling right now. But I wouldn't count any of them out over the long haul. If they get their acts together-- learn the value of the information that they supply, and how to charge for that, and finally develop a model for making money on their GROWING audience when their website traffic is figured in-- I still firmly believe when the overall recession ends, "newspapers" will thrive again, in one format or another.— March 4, 2009 1:29 p.m.
If 3 Major Dailies Are Worth $22 Million, What Is U-T Worth?
There was a terrific article in the February 23rd Ad Age magazine called “It’s not the newspapers, it’s their owners,” that I’d suggest everyone here take a look at. It points out that if you analyze newspapers’ earnings, you’ll find that most are still making money and even decent margins. The current problems stem from the debt newspaper owners took on based on projections that didn't pan out, and NOT because newspapers themselves are “dying out.” It says that publicly owned newspapers averaged an operating profit of 10.8 percent in the first three quarters of last year, which were recessionary quarters, even though the recession wasn’t “official.” By contrast, the article said that the “successful” grocery industry had profit margins less than 2%. They specifically mention Lee Enterprises (owners of the North County Times locally), which reported an $889 million net loss for the 12 months ended Sept. 28. But it’s not that “$889 million of cash flowed from the coffers just to make payroll and keep the presses running,” the author wrote. In fact, if you take away that accounting charge to look at the real dollars Lee papers collected and spent, its operating profit for those 12 months topped 20 percent! Gannett is similar. The company had an 18 percent profit margin last year. Scripps was at 9.8 percent. Even the newspapers owned by everyone's favorite whipping boy, The Tribune Co., returned a modest 5.4 percent operating profit in the first three quarters of last year. And I saw too that the CEO of Philadelphia Newspapers (who are among those currently in bankruptcy court), said that their “restructuring is focused solely on our debt, not our operations. Our operations are sound and profitable." The article concludes that “there is no reason for newspapers themselves, whoever owns them to stop the presses, and that most operations are plenty profitable.” When the recession is over, maybe some of the current newspaper owners are not going to be around, but their newspapers, I think, will be around and do just fine. For all the doom-and-gloom vultures here who seem to be just waiting to feed on a newspaper carcass, I’d suggest you plan to keep circling for a long, long time…— March 4, 2009 11:43 a.m.