Big Changes Coming for the St. Petersburg Times on May 19

The St. Petersburg Times will be seriously redefined on May 19.

That's when the paper will implement changes designed to emphasize material readers have told us they value most in the weekday paper and bring down costs. The big changes: Floridian, our daily features section, will publish just on Sundays, while our business section will merge with our B section metro news in a new section. TV listings, comics, Dear Abby, crossword puzzles and the more popular syndicated elements of our features section will move to a new section called BayLink.

As always, when circumstances compel the Times to reimagine the newspaper, executives have tried to husband resources while emphasizing elements readers will like in new ways. So there are new features added to the Taste section -- including a weekly restaurant review -- a return of the color weather map, four new comics and the move of our daily entertainment report, The Juice, to the inside front page of our A section, among other changes. The Sunday paper, where much of our readership's attention falls, will change little.

Leaders here are hoping BayLink -- which combines classifieds, syndicated features and news content in a section they're imagining as newspaper's closest thing to a shopping mall -- will be seen an innovative effort at collecting material readers want in one section. 

Among the big elements which will disappear: traditional stock listings (some will be available in a new format; many papers have eliminated them, because the information is so readily available online), the Road Test column, the Parenting column (though more parenting coverage is planned, both online and for the paper), the Working section and the Sew Simple feature.

There will also be a half-page in Sunday Floridian featuring much of the material featured in this space, called, surprisingly enough, The Feed.

Top staffers at the paper have been working on these changes for months, with an eye toward creating a more streamlined paper during the week, eliminating material readers may not value so much, and, in the midst of a serious recession, cutting costs. It is the second time we've redesigned the paper since 2006 -- coming close on the heels of the Tampa Tribune's reconfiguration in March -- and the open question is always how will readers react to paying the same price for a smaller product? 

Our executive editor Neil Brown will introduce readers to these changes with a column on Sunday, and there will be stories in the paper each day next week outlining how each section will change and where people can find the material they've come to enjoy.

It's a tough spot for a media critic to negotiate; I'm not an ombudsman with a contract guaranteeing employment no matter what I write, so I've tried to respect the organization's need to plan while pulling together this blog post to give anyone who reads this space early notice on the coming changes.

I've written before in this space about how the Times' business model ensuring our independence -- the fact that we're owned by a non-profit, the Poynter Institute -- has given us a bit more time to deal with the financial forces that are dramatically transforming other newspapers. But we're not insulated from the pressure, and these changes are evidence of that fact.

Looks like we're all stepping into a new era together, starting May 19.

Comments

[David]

Change is inevitable and the price change was just as inevitable. One thing is great. You are unrelated to the Gannet chain which has helped in the demise of a number of great newspapers. Thanks for remaining independent. I don't like the redefining because I belong to a literate generation. Time will tell if I like the change and keep buying the newspaper.

What has happened to the T.V. guide????
There's no information about the movies that are on!!!???

[OLDTIMER]

I HAVE BEEN a full time subscriber to the paper and for many years it made me want to get up and start my day with it, but all the changes the last 2 years or so have me not caring about reading it to start my day. the smaller physical size along with smaller fonts and the shading in areas like the TV guide makes it hard to read for some of us older readers. The location changes and the new "Baylink" may just make me give up and go to another newspaper. THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE CHANGES NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BEFORE HE OR SHE DESTROYS WHAT ONCE WAS A GRAT NEWSPAPER.

[ready to quit]

This new format stinks. There are the same amount of advertisements but less new. The lack of business and financial coverage when we are into a recession is driving me to consider dropping the paper. I read a paper to get away from the computer. Now all this paper does is refer to the computer. If that is the case why should I get the paper at all?
Put it back before you lose all the subscibers. I might as well subscribe to the Washington Post.

[Tim Bo]

My suggestion to the sinking ship called St. Petersburg Times: Give your paper away for free. TBT is free, so why not SPT? Swallow your pride, and do it! This will solve all your financial problems.

[Frugal Ben]

In regard to Dreaming's comments:

It's unconscionable that the press is cutting back on business and financial coverage when we are into a recession, the housing market continues to worsen, Wall Street is a mess of fraud and incompetence, state economies are staggering and Washington is doing all it can to protect executive criminals from facing the consequences of their actions.

So you tell me: Who is being helped by the failure of the press to keep middle-class people informed about the incompetence and criminality of government and business leadership? The middle-class citizenry or the criminals?

Info about collapse of the business section since the bubble of 2000 - 2001:

http://thriftslut.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-institutional-decay-business.html

snurl: http://snurl.com/28l6t

[Jim]

It's unbelievable the amount of tabloid trash this newspaper has resorted to since 2006. I still read the paper, but I read less of it.

[Jim Johnson]

Eric,

To help here. A "for-profit" corporation, like Media General or News Corp shares it's profits with it's shareholders. Profits are divvied up (usually as dividends) among all investors.

A "non-profit" or a "not-for-profit" corporation can not distribute any profit it receives. All profits must remain in the company.

The difference: shareholders and investors want to make money -- so they want to squeeze every penny of profit out they can. Profit becomes the driving force.

Surely, Poynter Institute would like to ensure the Times covers all of it's costs with some room for future growth or other unplanned expenses. So as the newspaper industry slowly dies, it will continue to cut costs wherever possible.

The cuts won't be as quick or as deep like they continue to be at Media General.

[dreaming]

....but you're comparing national papers like the NYT and Wash Post to the SP Times -- which is a great, but regional/statewide newspaper. Our business models are a bit different and our economic challenges are different as well...

the sptimes claims that its readers are too busy to read the existing paper. prove it.

all im saying is are the retirees of pinellas county busier than the residents of manhattan, chicago, washington? no one there complains that their hometown papers are too big.

im not comparing the business models of so-called national papers to the sptimes.

im questioning the sptimes' rationale for slimming itself. just say it's because it saves money, not because people are too busy to read it. show me one living individual who has ever told the sptimes that the paper is just too big to read. you know and i know that's a false claim.

just be honest.

[Eric Deggans]

Jope, you're talking about competting as journalists, which important. But i'm talking about competing as a business.

The Times is most definitely competing with the Tribune for ad dollars and market share locally. Because The SP Times readership is so different, this newspaper competes as a business much less with the larger outlets you mention.

[joe hillman]

>>>I think the main reason times officials are sometimes careful about what they say is because we're in constant competition with the Tribune.<<<

old school (read: archaic) journalism rears its ugly head. the sooner (all) journalists realize that the other local yokel paper in their respective market isn't the competition in this, the internet age, the better.

the times/tribune were competitors pre-internet. now, they are competing with the chicago tribune, new york post, washington post, cnn, tbnweekly.com, bay sludge 9, espn, wtsp, et al.

[Jimmy Delach]

I just read the explanation in Flordian saying "BayLink will also have all the comics we have now, plus four new ones, giving the Times far more than its' competition." That's good news for me. Thanks.

[Eric Deggans]

I dont think there's anything on poynter.org that says that news outlets must reveal every detail of their finances.

I think the main reason times officials are sometimes careful about what they say is because we're in constant competition with the Tribune.

That said, it's been my understanding that our profits have not been substantial over the last couple of years.

Being owned by a non-profit, by the way, means that we don't have as much pressure to make sizable profits. But we must earn enough money to fund the poynter institute and make all our business and charitable ventures viable.

[Once A Fan]

Eric: I don't know you, so I would never suggest that you aren't speaking anything but what you believe, straight from the heart.
But it will obviously take someone from outside of the TB area to come in and take SPT to the task for failing its mission. Give us some transparency. Nobody is asking SPT to run as a charity. But what does being owned by a non-profit mean? What is your profit margin? Is all that stuff on poynter.org just "do as we say, not as we do?"

[Eric Deggans]

I believe the plan right now is just to add comics, not subtract them...

[Jimmy Delach]

My one question of all this concerns the comics, specifically the addition of four new ones. Will some of the current comics have to be cut to make room for the new comics? I've been reading your comics since 1987 and my favorites are "Peanuts", "Dennis the Menace", "Garfield" and a few others. I sincerely hope that these changes do not signal the end for Charlie Brown, Snoopy and the other "Peanuts" characters. I don't care if those strips are new or old. As long as United Features continues to distribute the old "Peanuts" strips, the Times must continue to run them especially since I live in Hernando County and your paper is the only one still running "Peanuts".

[Eric Deggans]

The wall street journal was redesigned to a slimmer size not too long before our first redesign in 2006.

But you're comparing national papers like the NYT and Wash Post to the SP Times -- which is a great, but regional/statewide newspaper. Our business models are a bit different and our economic challenges are different as well...

[dreaming]

can the sptimes show proof of the claim that readers think it's just too big to read?

that is pretty funny. the thing is so slim, i just cannot imagine. how do the nytimes and washpost and wsj etc survive then? are people really that different in st pete that they cant get through the little local paper with its three or four local stories?

if neil brown were a rookie, his copy would be sent back for rewrite for burying the lede and including too many red herrings and non sequitors as he danced around his explanations.

ads are down. that is why this is happenning.

as to giving it a chance, what choice is there? im not mad about it. but cant newspapers for onec be honest and tell their own bad news like they tell everyone's elses with no mercy?

[Eric Deggans]

sorry i haven't answered these comments sooner. But I was out all day on assigment friday hanging with Syesha and hip deep in family stuff yesterday.

I understand the dismay and hurt among the paper's fans. Believe me, there's lots of people at the Times who would rather not see a slimming of the paper.

But the facts are that one of the biggest reasons former readers give about why they stopped buying the paper is because there was too much for them to read during the week.

And Times execs have learned from their experience with TBT that you can have success by building a paper suited to the audience's consumption habits. If they might respond to the best news the Times can distill in a smaller paper on weekdays -- given that the company also needs to cut costs in a challenging newspaper economy, then perhaps slimming the paper in a smart way makes sense.

I have said this many times in many different venues -- I think the leaders at the times are making cuts in as smart a way as i've seen anyone do in this industry. But in the end, cuts have to be made to preserve the business.

roger, i'm sure you could look over my many posts on downturns in the industry and see a wide range of tones, depending on your own perspective. i think I've tried to be as fair as possible, while also being realistic about what i'm seeing. If you think i haven't done that before now, then you and will have to respectfully disagree.

The Times is for-profit newspaper owned by a non-profit, which is the Poynter institute for Media Studies.

BayLink isn't going to be a junk section, and I hope you give it a chance and read a few issues before you condemn it. People also said TBT was going to be a news lite paper, but it has proven over time to be much more substantial and complex than its critics ever imagined.

And to answer Once a Fan -- I think the Times still does take its journalistic mission seriously.

The company seems to have tried very hard to maintain staffing and news output at a time when the cost of newsprint is soaring and the advertising market is falling.

I hope, Once, that you will consider not living up to your name until you've had a chance to see how these changes actually affect the daily newspaper.

[Once a fan]

So I thought you guy were different, that you took journalism and your mission seriously. I don't know of any other newspapers that is essentially spiking its features section. And, please, please, none of this baloney about how any of this is what the readers want. If you want to commit suicide, go ahead. Don't tell me I asked you to do it.

[dreaming]

tell neil brown not to insult our intelligence in his sunday column by claiming:
a/ any of this is positive
b/ readers 'wanted' these changes
c/ any will be an 'improvement.'

you used the word 'streamlining.' nice try. these are big cuts and sad, bad news.

im not understanding what sounds like shrinking the biz section, one of the subjects that is growing in popularity nationwide.

also, your analogy of a shopping mall for the syndicated features etc is spin. this will be the junk section and it will look it, just like the trib's version.

everybody at the times should be on their knees thanking nelson poynter for helping, so far, to avoid big layoffs and buyouts.

[Frank]

Eric, It was my understanding that the Poynter Institue is a school for Journalists founded in 1975 by Nelson Poynter, then Chairmen of the St Pete Times and The Congressional Quarterly. The institute was bequethed the controlling interest of both papers in 1978. It does not mean that the paper does not seek a profit, it essentially means that the paper does not pay tax on said profit as a 501 c nonprofit organization. My question to you is, what does the institue do with it's profits? (In past years)
This year it doesn't look like there will be any profits, in fact, by looking at the revenue and the institutes budget, it like like Poynter will come up a little short of meeting their goal(budget). I guess that might explain some of the changes.

[Roger in Orlando]

Eric;
Save this column. Please refer back to it when you're announcing layoffs/changes at other publications. This is the tone I think you're shooting for-- sober, with your boss's spin intact. There's a distinct feeling of dancing on the grave when you write about this happening to every other newspaper in the state/country.

[joe hillman]

for three or four years i thought the floridian section was mostly a waste. it was basically one page of (potentially) decent stories with jumps. once you got past the front page, you were done.

smart move dropping that.