Author: Jim Willis
Published: May 21, 1998
Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version

Readership

Dumbing down news and titillating readers has cheapened our product; we should go after those willing to pay for news

Just how far does a newspaper’s obligation go to the general public?

We talk often, for instance, of the public’s right to know and the public’s need to know. But what about the public’s want to know? Remember The National Enquirer’s television spots with the featured pitch, "Inquiring minds want to know!"

Is the fascination with gossip and titillation within the scope of the daily newspaper’s social obligation? Much of the newspaper industry is acting as if it is.

As newspapers continue to chase subscribers in a mass-circulation arena, they must pander to the apathetic (industry researchers call them "marginal") readers. Why? Because that is where the incremental growth often lies.

If newsroom budgets were unlimited, offering something for everyone might not be so questionable. The reality is the opposite, however. Newsroom budgets are tight and getting tighter. Whatever money goes toward the shadow is money taken from the substance.

Seven years ago, the Newspaper Association of America suggested newspapers could go for a Mass Appeal, Class Appeal, Individual Appeal, or Direct Appeal in their efforts to survive and prosper.

I haven't heard much about this debate recently, although online publications seem to have the Individual Appeal all wrapped up, and the Direct Appeal is more related to pleasing advertisers than focusing on the readers’ needs.

So it seems like a good time to resurrect and re-examine the Mass  Appeal/ Class Appeal question. Why? Because no one except monopoly-loving Wall Street appears happy with the current climate in newsrooms or the way much news is being defined and packaged.

The situation is full of irony. Industry research indicates that newspaper circulation is flat, even as reporters and editors grow weary over delivering a compromised brand of journalism designed to attract the larger audiences they are not getting.

Recently some 25 editors and academics making up the ASNE Ethics and Values Committee met in Philadelphia to study newspaper credibility.

Much was said about gaining more credibility by focusing on the traditional standards of accuracy, fairness, depth, and balance. There was general reluctance, however, to talk about what readers might want. Some dedicated editors even suggested this credibility study should not be concerned with marketing considerations.

Admirable as this thinking is, it belies reality. Responding to a recent survey on credibility, several top editors noted that credibility is a reader’s issue, not a journalist’s issue. The readers, this thinking goes, define whether a newspaper is credible.

And readers may or may not use the same yardstick that a dedicated editor might.

If journalists want to define credibility in their own terms, they will never do it while appealing to a mass-circulation market that is essentially a market for attention, not news. In a market for attention, the person who buys the paper for the comics counts as much as one wanting the news.

The option, of course, is to break off the chase and redefine the market much as magazines started doing 25 years ago. After the giant, general-circulation magazines like Look and the original Life folded in the early 1970s, the magazine industry moved ahead by charting a new course in targeting niche audiences. Today magazines are stronger than ever.

The risk magazines took was that circulation numbers could be sacrificed for quality readers. Quality was defined as an intense level of interest by readers in the magazine’s subject matter. If interest were strong enough, then a smaller circulation base would suffice if the right advertising mix were found for the content.

Of course, some newspapers have already moved in the direction of seeking more intense readers. The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Wall Street Journal are among them. Their uniqueness lies in targeting their market’s most interested readers and giving them a solid news product. Marketing efforts directed at the marginal, apathetic readers are slim to none. Interesting, isn’t it, that these are also three of the largest circulation newspapers in America?

Associated with such readership is strong education, affluence, and community involvement. Coincidentally, these are just the factors most advertisers target, too.

The Class Appeal (a worse name than Focused Appeal) strategy often calls for aggressive pricing that would increase circulation rates while sustaining overall circulation number declines of up to 25 percent. The readers who remain, however, would be the ones with the solid interest in news.

Does this translate to abandoning some readers and to pricing a newspaper beyond the reach of the disenfranchised? And what about doing this in a non-television market where the alternatives to news are more limited?

As to abandonment, consider who is abandoning who. The Class Appeal strategy targets those individuals interested enough in the news to read it. If an individual wants to avoid the news, then he or she is the one doing the abandoning.

I have a 6-year-old at home who sometimes cries because she feels left out of a conversation. But all she must do to be included is to get involved in that chat. It is the same with marginal readers and non-readers. It is their responsibility to get involved.

Further, it is unlikely that a newspaper, which targets news-hungry readers, will abandon coverage of any market segments. Why? Because of the very nature of the curious readers they are serving.

As to pricing a newspaper beyond the level of people able to pay, we are talking about a few extra dollars per month. If people care that little about the news, then how much money does the newsroom want to spend in luring them?

As to restricting news alternatives in non-television markets, this is a non-issue. These markets are generally community journalism markets, and the popularity of most community newspapers is so strong that few adjustments are needed in the first place. Also, in case it has escaped anyone’s attention, we are living in an age where the problem is more of an information glut than vacuum.

Newspapers can cover all market segments, but they cannot force anyone to read the news. All a paper can do is:

• Provide a good news product to those who want it, or
• Lure the attention marginal readers through pseudo-news and entertainment.