Two days into new Times: What do you think?

To be honest, I expected an avalanche.

I knew the changes coming to the daily newspaper on Monday were significant -- no daily Floridian section, no separate daily business section, comics and crosswords and a collection of other things combined into a new classified ads section called BayLink. And when you change something significant which people have come to know and expect in their daily routine, it can be a shock.

Still, the economic forces stressing the newspaper industry are well known, so that may explain why the telephones weren't ringing off the hook when we implemented our changes on Monday. Unofficially, I hear the number of complaints were significantly less than the complaints we got when we redesigned the newspaper to a smaller size in 2006. Of course, I hope that smaller number doesn't mean readers don't care enough to complain, anymore.

It's probably heresy to acknowledge this, but even as an employee of the Times I had trouble getting through every newspaper every day. Indeed, newspapers weren't really designed for that; the idea was to offer a huge chunk of material in each day, with the hope that everyone could find some thing to like every day. And I think we've done that well for quite a long time.

But today's times make undertaking that mission every day a little less feasible. Read media trade publications or web sites and you will see a depressing litany of buyouts, layoffs and departures. Bob Woodward is offering to write for the Washington Post as a contract writer for $1 a year at that newspaper, among 100 staffers there who will take an early retirement buyout. David Broder, their longtime political writer and considered one of the deans of American political journalism, will also move to contract -- i.e., no benefits -- status.

So tough times are everywhere and they have come to the Tampa Bay area media scene. Which leads me to ask those of you reading this blog who get our print product: What do you think? Does the new Times meet its mission of giving you a more manageable chunk of news each day? And what -- besides going back to the old system, which ain't going to happen -- would you tweak about what's going on now?

Believe me, at a time when ever reader counts, we really want to know... (click on any image to enlarge) 

Comments

It's still arranged wrong:

First off a complaint about comics: "The Pajama Diaries" was not only a funny strip to read daily but it's better colored than some of the color cartoons (Mother Goose and Grim for instance). Why was it relegated to the black and white section?

Secondly, the weather report at the back of the Sports section is out of place entirely.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish withthe 2B section but all entertainment stuff should ahve been compacted together in the Floridian section - not moved to a new split up and divided between sections.

So in short, besides my harping about a cartoon first and foremost, the new Times is more of a logistical nightmare with no sense of consistency.

[dreaming]

let's be honest: neither you nor your employer really want to know what readers think. as if the economic decisions already made would be affected by the uninformed opinions of the annoying people who buy the product.

newpapers have never given a hoot what their customers think. anyone who's ever been in 'the media' knows the haughty, too-busy-to-be-bothered attitude.

it's only as newspapers have begun to sink that this new kind of we-care lip-service has begun. people may be dumb, but they ain't stupid. they see right through it.

honestly, i havent bothered yet to check out the changes. your thought that maybe most just don't care enough to respond, i believe, is right on target.

[Eric Deggans]

Ahhhh, Dreaming...

Can always count on you for an upbeat analysis.

I can't really speak for my employers, because I'm not a boss. I'm just a worker bee with a little more visibility than most.

I can assure you, that I want to hear what readers think, and I plan to pass along ctual feedback to my bosses, who say they care what readers think.

I've said it many times before, in this space and others, I do think the editors here have made mostly smart cuts. And they've tried to rethink the product in intelligent ways while making the kind of reductions the marketplace demands.

I'm just not sure what else is possible in today's climate....

[Tom]

Though I have internet access...I HATE WHEN YOU STEER PEOPLE TO THE WEB FOR MORE INFO! It bugs me every day. If you deem it necessary info, PRINT IT. The print edition should be the main edition with everything included. You have TBT* for the sheeple who only want quick nuggets of news with no substance. Subscribers should get the complete publication without having to go to the web to finish a story.

Classifieds are clasifieds. Don't put other stuff in there, like the comics. The weather map on the back of Sports makes ZERO sense.

You may as well be honest with your readers. The change in format is simply to make the print edition smaller, and less expensive since your advertising revenues are down in print.

[Eric Deggans]

What we're finding, in operating various media platforms such as the newspaper, TBT and the Web, is that different material works for different outlets.

What makes a print story most effective is not necessarily the same as what makes a blog post most effective, and so on. More and more, we are treating each version of our journalism according to what works best on that platform. So there will be information mising from the print story because there wasn't enough room for it, or print wasn't the best home for it, or it was impossible to feature in print.

In the case of some of my columns, there was more information in the print version, because the online versino worked better streamlined.

So I think, more and more often, you will see different versions online because the storytelling works better in a different way -- not just because we can shoehorn more information there.

As far as "admitting" that the changes are about saving money, all I can do is say what I think is happening on my corner of Timesland, this blog. And I think I've been fairly upfront about the fact that economics is a big part of these decisions.

[Aaron]

Congratulations! You've successfully turned one of the most vibrant and informative papers in the country into the Penny Saver! Not only have you reduced the value of the new BayLink section to your devoted advertisers, you've destroyed any possibility for legitimate content. I believe that Nelson Poynter would have cancelled his subscription had he had received a paper with the BayLink section. Surely, you can no longer criticize government for cutting funds for arts and education. You have cut out the arts, and you have cut out education. Au Revoir, St. Pete Times! You shall be missed.

[Susan]

I can't help thinking what the (large) population of elderly readers think of the new format. My grandparents are quite discouraged by the reduction of content. They actually DO have time to read it every day. Now, the paper is quite skinny and the online version is quite large with all the video clips, blogs, features, etc. Makes me wonder....if the online version is free and better/bigger and the paper version costs money, then.....

[The Carl]

Kinda sad how the story about the Fox 13 GM getting busted for spanking the monkey (allegedly) gets dozens of comments, yet this one only got seven to this point -- and two of those are from Eric!
Not that my opinion matters, but I really think Times readers basically care about three things: that the paper shows up on time in the morning, that it ain't wet, and that it doesn't take too long to read. Beyond that, the editors will keep doing whatever the hell they think is best, because they think they know more than other 99% of us.
(By the way, Eric, telling us you're merely a worker bee at the Times is as convincing as Hillary having a beer on the campaign trail.)

[Eric Deggans]

Ouch! I only wish I had the power you think I have.

I think the most frustrating thing for all of us who care about news, is that no one seems to have figured out how to maintain the old levels of newspaper staffing and publication size in the modern economic environment.

Tempting as it is to blame the people running the show, there really isn't anyone out there who has figured out how to handle this awful situation any better....

[joe hillman]

Tom:

unless you (or the "large populations of elderly" subscribers) want to pay $3 per issue, it's only common sense to steer people to the web.

study after study after study show more people ever week much less year get their information on the net. meanwhile advertising dollars in print shrink at the same time costs for ink and paper skyrocket.

why would the times (or any paper) put most of its content in a format that is the most expensive (and least read) and leave the least expensive and most popular format barren?

[Darice]

I have to say that while I sympathize with the economics behind the changes, I'm not really fond of them. I liked the content. Does the newly stripped-down, lean-and-mean Times mean we'll lose in-depth series reports like the Zoo series from last year?

I will say that we have gotten the SPTimes for 10 years now, and this year we initially didn't renew because the price had gone up so much. We eventually renewed when we were offered a half-price deal. Had we paid full price, I would have been incensed to see the paper dwindle like this for the amount of money paid. We have economic challenges, too. ;)

(Also, I second the vote for Pajama Diaries in color. Why colorize Peanuts, when it's a rerun anyway?)

[Walter R. Moore]

Yuck.

I can not think of anything I DO like in the changes.. wait.. I like that the weather is in color again. But I look at my computer for weather because it is more up to date.

I note everything has been cut and folded together except Sports.. the section I always toss in recycling without reading. At this point I'm mad at myself for renewing the paper at all.

Papers exist, should exist, because they can provide investigative journalism and expert analysis of real news, local and world. And yet that's the part that is cut and cut again. I can read sports scores on-line. I read the AP wires the day before they hit the paper. I need you digging up news that isn't reported elsewhere.

Put the paper back the way it was and hire more reporters.

[joe hillman]

>>> I can read sports scores on-line. I read the AP wires the day before they hit the paper. I need you digging up news that isn't reported elsewhere.<<<

when are sports editors going to wake up!? i can't understand why agate is still run. like stock quotes, that should be scrapped.

and the same with game stories. unless something significant happens (jamie shields' one-hitter; rick ankiel throwing two guys out at third from the center field warning track), instead of running game stories that are nearly 10 hours old, the stories should look forward: how will last night's game affect tonight's game?

[Ed]

I think there will always be a culture of people who like to read newspapers by holding them- Just the audience will continue to shrink due to all the influences of time, money, maintenance and technology. The Times will always be around, it just can not keep operating in this changing world on its old models, so management must make changes with the resources it has. Not doing anything would be poor management.

Sadly journalism will have try to do more with less.
That is the challenge journalists face.
But we need journalism.

This is all a process- and it is a bitter pill

I think Eric is frank about why the choices that were made. The paper is trying to deliver content with the most flexibility in the available print space. I appreciate the compromise and work being done to save what they can. I think readers eventually acclimate to find what they want.

One thing for sure, the content provided by the Times is of a quality higher than other local newspapers. This economic shift is relevant to all newspapers- I think most of these complaints are being heard all over the country.

Just like anything else, operating cost will always influence the product. The price of newsprint, the price of energy (delivery trucks use either gas or diesel), inflation eating up discretionary funding.

One good thing about the times is that if you use the coupons wisely, you can effectively null the cost of the paper and still save money. I saved $7 by buying the Times last Sunday and using the coupons for things I actually buy.

I live in Sarasota and prefer to read the Times. Just has better stories with a local flare. Ones that I can authentically connect to.

I am a realist, I will take what I can get if the paper is worth the coins I put in the box. So far it still worth it regardless of the recent changes.

In the glass half empty, half full, I am glad there is still a glass to make that choice from. I am sure more changes are coming in the future. The past indicates that.

Hang in there!

[Bob]

They should call the paper the st. pete I'm gonna find a way to make you reae the ads paper. Worst paper in publication.

[Pat Seel]

I want my old Times back.

Do you think by putting movies, crossword and sudoku in the middle of the Classified that it will make people read the classified? You must really think your readers are stupid. Can’t you arrange things together? What’s with putting the weather on the back of the Sports??????

Also, has the paper stooped so low as to put sex ads in the paper? You’re always are asking for donation for news papers for schools, do you want your children or grandchildren reading this stuff.

I hate that I get ink on my hands now, I hate that the paper looks like the paper we get when we are traveling thru little towns on vacation, that only print once or twice a week. I hate the quality of the paper, it is so thin that when I open up my paper the paper is creased in so many places that I have to put on the table and smooth it out.

In short the paper looks cheap, cheap....It's a shame that the St. Petersburg Times doesn’t have any pride anymore.....