Gooch Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Noticed today that the Chron is getting noticebly smaller. Today the Business and City&State sections were combined. Might as well be. Last time I picked up a copy the Business was 4 pages (singlefold). I'm also noticing fewer and fewer local stories. Still lots of pulled AP stories, as always.How long before it's gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I've noticed the same. The Business section is never more the 6 pages. The local section is usually 3 pages (including ads) followed by obits. Maybe more local stories are landing in the first section, that seems to stay relatively large, on Sundays at least. Also, I only pay for Sunday Chron, but we get at least 4 papers a week. I don't know if they have extra ones or are just trying to reel us in for a bigger subscription, but we'll just keep taking them for free, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heightsite Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Don't overlook the classifieds in the Sports section! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Matt Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 How long before it's gone?I don't buy it at its new $1 price. 75 cents was ok but give me a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citykid09 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I don't buy it at its new $1 price. 75 cents was ok but give me a break!I noticed that it went up to $1 the other day, when did that happen? How does that compare to other large city prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I noticed that it went up to $1 the other day, when did that happen? How does that compare to other large city prices?Not the same since Lawrence Marshall went outta business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkultra25 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Noticed today that the Chron is getting noticebly smaller. Today the Business and City&State sections were combined.For now, they're only combining the Business/City & State sections on Mondays and Tuesdays. They had a brief blurb about it a couple of weeks ago the first time they did it. It's obviously a cost-cutting measure - the Monday/Tuesday papers seem like they're half the size of the ones for the other days of the week. At least the Chron isn't (yet) in the dire straits that some of the other Hearst-owned papers are - the San Francisco Chronicle is in danger of ceasing publication altogether, which would leave SF without a major daily newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimberlySayWhat Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 One of the headlines on the Drudge Report right now: WHICH BIG CITY WILL BE FIRST WITHOUT MAJOR NEWSPAPER? DEVELOPING... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxmulder Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Dallas Morning News is 1.00 a weekday too...Chron.com is SO SLOW...Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I noticed that it went up to $1 the other day, when did that happen? How does that compare to other large city prices?There was outrage two years ago when the two big Chicago papers raised their prices from 35 cents to 50 cents. The LA Times doubled its price from 25 cents to 50 cents in 2001.Here's what newspapers cost today (I just picked large towns and cities pretty much at random, weighed heavily towards Texas and Louisiana papers):AL: Birmingham News - 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Guess they are trying to keep up with the post office. You would think in a city the size of Houston, they could get the advertising dollars to cover more of their costs and charge their readers less. If they keep going up and no one will be able to afford to subscribe and if no one is reading it than who will advertise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Guess they are trying to keep us with the post office. You would think in a city the size of Houston, they could get the advertising dollars to cover more of their costs and charge their readers less.By that logic, the New York Times should be the least expensive paper, not the most expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb4647 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Noticed today that the Chron is getting noticebly smaller. Today the Business and City&State sections were combined. Might as well be. Last time I picked up a copy the Business was 4 pages (singlefold). I'm also noticing fewer and fewer local stories. Still lots of pulled AP stories, as always.How long before it's gone?Time for the Chron to give up on printing and delivering the paper and move to online only. Some with bellache but that huge expense of printing and delivering should be devoted to beefing up the reporting staff. Time marches on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Time for the Chron to give up on printing and delivering the paper and move to online only. Some with bellache but that huge expense of printing and delivering should be devoted to beefing up the reporting staff. Time marches on.Not until the word jumble (crossword is already there) and all the coupons get put online. That's why we get it now, news is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidegate Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Not the same since Lawrence Marshall went outta business.The real death knell was when Foley's went under. I swear the main section of the paper halved in size. There'd be about a square inch story on a major famine stuck in the corner of a page with about fourteen bra models on it. I'd have got rid of it long ago but my wife and daughter like to read the comics at breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Time for the Chron to give up on printing and delivering the paper and move to online only. Some with bellache but that huge expense of printing and delivering should be devoted to beefing up the reporting staff. Time marches on.Unfortunately, the internet does not yet generate enough money to support the staff that the Chron has now, let alone beef it up.Someday this will come to pass, but the internet just isn't there yet. It took radio and TV a while to work out their business models, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I noticed that it went up to $1 the other day, when did that happen? How does that compare to other large city prices?It was not at $0.75 for long I guess. It was $0.50 for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It was not at $0.75 for long I guess. It was $0.50 for years.Just curious, anyone know the price history of the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Noticed today that the Chron is getting noticebly smaller. Today the Business and City&State sections were combined. Might as well be. Last time I picked up a copy the Business was 4 pages (singlefold). I'm also noticing fewer and fewer local stories. Still lots of pulled AP stories, as always.How long before it's gone?The writing is on the wall for printed papers. They really should go the way of other papers and go completely online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The writing is on the wall for printed papers. They really should go the way of other papers and go completely online.They're trying. But going completely online right now will just put them out of business immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 They're trying. But going completely online right now will just put them out of business immediately.Maybe, but they're going to keep bleeding money with print if they keep this up. NO ONE READS PRINT any more.Well, a few people, like my 70 year old mom who can't imagine reading a paper online, but who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverartfox Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Maybe, but they're going to keep bleeding money with print if they keep this up. NO ONE READS PRINT any more.Well, a few people, like my 70 year old mom who can't imagine reading a paper online, but who else?I am offended by your statement about "people not reading print" anymore, as well as the implication that older people "can't imagine reading a paper online".You are making assumptions related to personal choices and age bias that may not be true.As one of the more aged contributors to this forum, let me inform you that I have been reading print for knowledge and pleasure since letters were first scratched on the walls of caves and will continue to do so as long as it's physically possible. Newspapers on line are fine (I wouldn't read the NY Times otherwise), but when Hurricane Ike left my neighborhood without power for 16 days and I didn't have internet or TV, it was sure nice to find that paper at my gate every day......even if it was the crappy Chronicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm not old. I'm not even middle aged. I read print when I lived in Baton Rouge. I read print when I lived in New Orleans. I read print when I travel to Austin. I much prefer to read an actual put-it-in-my-hands so I can pick it up later and not tied to a computer screen print paper. I rarely buy the Chronicle. Printing is not why the Chronicle is falling on hard times. Printed or online, it just a crappy newspaper. They try so hard to be a 'national' paper like the NYTimes, WSJ, or Washington Post. They do a poor job of that. Not enough bureaus, correspondants or stringers.. They just pull AP stories you can read in any other paper. They devote enough space to the national issues that they fail at being a local paper too. Not enough space to cover something that isn't already covered by TV. They provide no more, often less, depth than TV. Depth is the advantage a newspaper has.As best as I can figure, they go to print about 6pm. Meaning if something happens after 6pm on Monday, it doesn't show up in the paper until WEDNESDAY! By that time its' already out of the news cycle. TV's had 4-cracks at it (Mon10p, Tues6A, Tues6P, Tues10p). Yes, print is slow, but it's ridiculous. The BR Advocate for example, doesn't go to press until around midnight (sometimes later). So, in the morning when you get your *printed* paper the news is still fresh, and competitive in timeliness with TV. And most of the Sunday Chronicle is published on Friday night. Hard to take any newspaper seriously that doesn't publish a real Sunday paper. How can you buy a "Sunday" paper on Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 How can you buy a "Sunday" paper on Saturday?My mother, the one person I know that actually buys the Chron, does. I think she feels she is living in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Maybe, but they're going to keep bleeding money with print if they keep this up. NO ONE READS PRINT any more.Statements like that just make you sound dumb. There are over a half a million people who read the Chronicle each weekday (448,271 to be exact), and even more on Sundays. Making blanket statements like that isn't much of an argument. It just makes you sound like you're trying to be too cool for school.Well, a few people, like my 70 year old mom who can't imagine reading a paper online, but who else?Ageism -- it's the racism of the post-racial era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Ageism -- it's the racism of the post-racial era.If ageism occurs when someone notices and points out that different generations tend to have different behaviors, then I guess I'm ageist. The elderly tend to smell funny and have an aversion or disinterest in new technology. The same is true of babies, albeit in (only) a (very slightly) different way. Teenagers tend to be surly. Young adults (like myself, but not me) tend to figuratively suck on cancerous monkey testicles all day for some reason beyond my comprehension.Personally, I don't see anything wrong with these statements, even if you say that they're ageist. Of course, I don't expect them to be around for very long. It apparently qualifies as hate speech (for some reason known only to Editor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm not old. I'm not even middle aged. I read print when I lived in Baton Rouge. I read print when I lived in New Orleans. I read print when I travel to Austin. I much prefer to read an actual put-it-in-my-hands so I can pick it up later and not tied to a computer screen print paper. I rarely buy the Chronicle. Printing is not why the Chronicle is falling on hard times.Very good. It's exactly the reason why some web sites sink and some float -- it's all about content. Unfortunately, too many newspapers have forgotten that. It's true for internet or TV or radio or newspapers -- if your content stinks, you will lose audience. It's why some cities smaller than Houston have two or three big daily newspapers -- because they compete on content, not for the Jumble or the classified ads.As a slight aside, that's what is killing a lot of newspapers. In the 80's and 90's they learned that they could clobber their competitors and even put them out of business if they managed to corner the market on classified ads. They put tons of effort into doing this (Dallas Morning News and Chicago Tribune are both guilty), sometimes running the ads at a loss in order to undermine the competition. Then once they were the king of classifieds, they used them to make money. For a while it was like printing money, because what other option did people have? Pretty much only shut-ins use "tradio."But then the internet happened. BBSes evolved into online forums. People moved away from the classifieds and started with eBay and Craigslist and other services. Suddenly the cash cow was gone and the newspaper sales people had to learn to sell again, but by then it was too late. One of the pillars upon which the big papers depended was pulled out from under them, and that's why we find them in the wobbly position they are today.Most newspapers are too big and bloated to react quickly to changes. I'm not talking about in the news department. News people always crave the latest technology to get their stories out. But the managers and other departments are often so insulated from the "news" in "newspaper" that it's like they live in a fantasy world. I know a large newspaper (and I'm told it's not unusual) where many of the older salespeople are on SALARY! Can you imagine that? No commission -- they're paid whether they sell or not. From what I hear the sales people have a couple of reliable stand-bys in their Rolodex and call them up to make one or two sales a month and then pocket a big fat check. Some hadn't left their office to make a sales call in decades!In this era of belt-tightening it was suggested by some new managers to the sales people that they might actually have to EARN their pay through commission and go out and actually SELL. There was nearly a revolt! It's a battle that's still going on, but if the newspaper wants to survive, the managers had better find a way to fire those lazy sales people.Printed or online, it just a crappy newspaper. They try so hard to be a 'national' paper like the NYTimes, WSJ, or Washington Post. They do a poor job of that. Not enough bureaus, correspondants or stringers.. They just pull AP stories you can read in any other paper. They devote enough space to the national issues that they fail at being a local paper too. Not enough space to cover something that isn't already covered by TV. They provide no more, often less, depth than TV. Depth is the advantage a newspaper has.Exactly. There's a reason that KPRC-TV brands itself "Local2" and 13 goes by "Houston's News Leader" and in other markets the TV stations use slogans like "Your Local News Source" and "Live, Local, Late Breaking."As best as I can figure, they go to print about 6pm. Meaning if something happens after 6pm on Monday, it doesn't show up in the paper until WEDNESDAY! By that time its' already out of the news cycle. TV's had 4-cracks at it (Mon10p, Tues6A, Tues6P, Tues10p). Yes, print is slow, but it's ridiculous. The BR Advocate for example, doesn't go to press until around midnight (sometimes later). So, in the morning when you get your *printed* paper the news is still fresh, and competitive in timeliness with TV.I can't speak for the Chronicle specifically, but of the four newspapers I've been involved with (some about the same size of the Chron; some smaller, some larger), the deadline is usually 10 or 11pm with the presses rolling by midnight and a bulldog edition (if they have it) on the streets by 1am.And most of the Sunday Chronicle is published on Friday night. Hard to take any newspaper seriously that doesn't publish a real Sunday paper. How can you buy a "Sunday" paper on Saturday?Every newspaper in every city (17 and counting) I've ever lived in has done this. The procedure is usually to push the Saturday edition of the Sunday paper to institutions and businesses. Then on Saturday produce a Sunday overwrap with updated news that looks like the regular Sunday news sections for delivery to residential customers and stores on Sunday morning. It can be hard to tell if the news has been updated because seriously, very little happens on an average Saturday.The reason this is done is because of the massive size of the Sunday papers with all the coupons and inserts. One newspaper I worked at began assembling the Sunday paper on Tuesday because of the inserts. Since the newspaper gets almost all of the inserts pre-printed in bulk on multiple pallets delivered by many trucks early in the week, it's not exactly an automated system. Often the first few inserts can be fed into very long, noisy machines that break down a lot that can put together a packet of a certain size, but once it gets too big, it's a manual operation. I did this for six months at a small (20,000 circulation) newspaper in the Northeast. What an awful job.I suspect the need to cut labor and machinery costs is the reason that a lot of newspapers now get most of their inserts delivered in a nice plastic packet now that can likely be more easily inserted into the paper. But anything outside that packet is probably done by hand -- all 20,000 (or in the case of the Chronicle 400,000) of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverartfox Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Ageism -- it's the racism of the post-racial era.Thanks, Editor. Is this statement your own, or is it attributable to another source? I may be using it in a document destined for print and was unable to find it in any of the online sources I usually access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverartfox Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 If ageism occurs when someone notices and points out that different generations tend to have different behaviors, then I guess I'm ageist. The elderly tend to smell funny and have an aversion or disinterest in new technology. The same is true of babies, albeit in (only) a (very slightly) different way. Teenagers tend to be surly. Young adults (like myself, but not me) tend to figuratively suck on cancerous monkey testicles all day for some reason beyond my comprehension.Personally, I don't see anything wrong with these statements, even if you say that they're ageist. Of course, I don't expect them to be around for very long. It apparently qualifies as hate speech (for some reason known only to Editor).Ah, Niche...once upon a time, I was young and made statements like yours, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Thanks, Editor. Is this statement your own, or is it attributable to another source? I may be using it in a document destined for print and was unable to find it in any of the online sources I usually access.I thunked it up all by myself when visiting an old folk's village in South Carolina. Feel free to do what you want with it.The elderly tend to smell funny and have an aversion or disinterest in new technology.People used to say the same thing about black people. Still proud of your -ism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.