New York Times Covers St. Petersburg Times: Misses a Few Things

Here's what I know now that I didn't before reading the New York Times' surprisingly bland profile of our business model in Sunday's newspaper.

Our payroll is at $90-million this year, with $6-million paid back to the Poynter Institute to help run its operation.

The Times investment in our youth-oriented tabloid, tbt*, was $6.3-million last year alone. And the company plans to match that investment this year.

We spend $250,000 each year to send copies of the Times to 350 subscribers in Tallahassee. (of course, it helps that many of those readers are probably among the state's most powerful politicians. But still.)

The story does a good job of talking about our commitment to investigative journalism and our intent to try hard not to skimp on aggressive news coverage, even in these awful economic times. But the story didn't note a few things -- we recently lost 11 positions in our IT department, including four already empty jobs, and our six-days-a-week Largo edition was cut back to two days weekly on Sunday.

It also didn't answer the one thing I've wondered: Does the Times' insulation from market pressure -- owned by a non-profit, we don't have to jump to Wall Street's demand for profit -- allow us to avoid the cost-cutting seen at other newspapers, or simply delay it?

Things I'm seeing us do now -- reducing our newspaper size, struggle to avoid layoffs by limiting staff size through attrition, slimming down or eliminating some sections -- are strategies some newspapers employed five years ago, when the bottom first began to fall out of the newspaper advertising market. What happens if markets don't improve over the next few years?

I hope the moves will be enough to make up for the lack of real estate advertising, the inroads free online classifieds have made in our business and the soft retail advertising market. As our chief executive Paul Tash said in the story "You have to keep the ball in play long enough until you see how you might win the game." Perception is a big part of that success, so a New York Times story positioning our model as the way of the future helps a lot -- thank you.

But whether our business model will allow us to completely avoid deeper cost-cutting -- that we may only learn with time. For some reason, I was hoping the New York Times might come up with a better answer than that.

I think the reporter might have come up with better answers, had he bothered to talk to any rank and file reporters (or editors) beyond our Pulitzer-winning feature writer Tom French. Tom is a great guy, but he inhabits a different sphere than most writers at the newspaper; the concerns of more average employees might have given the New York Times reporter a better feel for the challenges facing Times staffers, even under our unorthodox business model.

Talk about preserving journalistic integrity...

Comments

[erin]

Eric,
I can definitely tell the difference between the quality of stories in the St. Pete Times and my local chain daily. (They have a great food columnist here, and it really bugs me when they run a syndicated food column instead of something original.)
I'm glad the Times has managed to avoid the job-slashing that's affected so many other papers, but I have wondered if financial considerations had anything to do with letting go someone like Rick Gershman. (And I bring this up because he was one of my favorite reporters - I still miss his columns and wicked sense of humor. I know why he had to leave, but it seemed harsh for someone who brought such unique personality to the paper.) Does it make the paper look better to let people retire, not re-fill positions when someone quits or fire employees for minor offenses to avoid the publicity of layoffs? Of course, readers don't know what goes on behind the scenes personnel-wise, but that's my $.02.

[dreaming]

the sptimes has been 'keeping the ball in play' to try to win the game in hillsboro county for well nigh unto 25 or 35 years or more now. but the dang tampa trib refuses to lose.

you've got to wonder if the current mkt softness may lead one or the other paper to bail out of turf where it doesnt belong. somehow, i doubt it.

meanwhile, you whetted our appetites: so what would you have told the nyt about your struggle as an sptimes employee had you been asked?

[Eric Deggans]

i would have said what's in the blog post -- i think our ownership structure is delaying the tough choices other newspapers have had to make, but i don't think it avoids them.

Already, people are very concerned about job security and afraid the least little thing may cost them their jobs. And, like in may newspapers, folks are having to take on much more work as the people who leave are not replaced.

In short, it's an atmosphere similar to newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News and Philadelphia Inquirer about five years ago...

[dreaming]

hhmmm.....so you believe that, contrary to the nyt take, the sptimes is becoming more like other struggling papers, not less, despite its unique business model?

ultimately, doesnt that mean that the sptimes is doomed to the same fate as all the rest of the print newspaper world?

in other words, the sptimes is not a possible vision of salvation? of course, unless some pvt owners want to give their possessions away when they die, there aint gonna be no more sptimes anyway, as the nyt quoted one of your executives already saying, i guess. still, rupert murdoch, for example, is so old and so rich that he could afford to give the wall street journal away when he kicks in a few more years. that would still leave his heirs with half the publishing world.