There's change afoot at the San Francisco Chronicle.
The newspaper has recently introduced a redesign. In his open letter to the newspaper's readership, Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee explained that part of the reason for the redesign
"In June, when we flip the switch on the most modern newspaper presses in the United States, readers can look forward to a high-definition version of The Chronicle," he wrote.
But it's not the printing presses or the redesign that is the most eye-opening portion of the column. It's the numbers Bushee puts on the table.
Some background - it's become a well-worn path to bring up the Chronicle as the pinnacle of print's struggles right now, mentioning that its losing almost $1 million each week, or how services like CraigsList are pulling readers to the Web.
In short, the Chronicle has become the poster child for the failing print publication, a newspaper expected to fold at any given point because it's hemorrhaging money.
What Ward Bushee lays on the table gives new insight into the plight of a print publication, and even more, the sheer stubbornness of the Hearst Corporation not to give up on the San Francisco market.
In his letter, he highlights the costs behind the a Sunday edition of the Chronicle: $10 for each paper from production to delivery, a staggering figure for a paper that is sold for one-fifth of that cost.
But these two facts - the new presses and the costs of the newspaper - show a commitment made by the Chronicle's parent corporation not seen at any of its other publications. Despite all of the speculation about the Chronicle's impending doom, the Hearst family and board of directors are displaying a major commitment to its future, the costs be damned.
Yes, the Chronicle did have a major round of layoffs in 2007 that resulted in the publication jettisoning multiple high ranking editors, but as the situation gets worse for print in this tanking economy and major newspapers continue tocut staff, the Chronicle is giving the impression that is will proceed, damn the torpedoes.
So, as the company abuses its other publications, the parent company continues to let what is by all observers opinions a sinking publication.
The reality of the matter, as I see it - The San Francisco Chronicle is the Hearst Corporation's flagship paper, or at least holds a special place in the family-owned company's heart since William Randolph Hearst got his start in San Francisco. To let it die would be retreating from the company's legacy, which is even less acceptable for a family that values tradition.
Hearst has a bonus that other news corporations don't — it's privately held. The Hearst family never took the company private like the Sulzberger's did with the New York Times or like Tribune was. And so far, it may be keeping publications like the Chronicle with as full a staff as it can have.
While it is too much to say that the paper will survive long term, I can say that the company would rather cut around the it than from it. By in large, the San Francisco Chronicle has avoided the worst of the layoffs as a newspaper.
While I can only imagine how grim the news room must be right now given the job market, and the knowledge that the Hearst family can't keep up the no-cuts, full-speed-ahead charade forever, the bigwigs seem to be pushing for the upgrades and changes that cost a lot of money.
Its the ultimate "let them eat cake" moment for the news business— as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer prepares to close, the Chronicle will fire up its new, high definition printing presses. And it makes me wonder about the priorities of the company.
(Graphic by John Hornberg, front pages courtesy of Newseum.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment