Editor’s Note
Back in the old days — that’s less than a decade and before there were such things as blogs and interactive conversations with readers — editors used to respond to their newspaper readers with an “editor’s note.” Sometimes it clarified a point made in a letter to the editor. Sometimes it offered a correction. Sometimes it was just a simple explanation. An editor’s note was a handful of sentences; maybe a four or five paragraphs. It was always a personal link between the editor and the reader. Only difference between it and today’s blog is the immediacy and the platform. Welcome to Editor’s Note.

Bye-bye TV book

January 21st, 2009 at 11:54am Linda Grist Cunningham

It it were up to me (and it’s probably a good thing it isn’t), I would eliminate the Sunday television listings booklet. I switched to TIVO years ago, and after swearing under my breath for the couple hours it took me to hook it up and program it, I haven’t picked up a “What’s on TV” since.

I watch a lot of television. I like television. I don’t need my listings in print. But, I know some folks are lost without their printed listings. So, we’re sticking with the daily listings and with the Sunday TV book — sort of. Beginning Feb. 15, the only subscribers who will get a TV book delivered to their homes will be those who opt in. We’re eliminating distribution to everyone else.

So, why? Actually, the honest answer is simple: We had to cut expenses again. The TV book consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars in newsprint, and it was  better to cut the paper than to cut more people. The paper for the book pretty much pays for the salaries and benefits of three or four staffers.

I could spin a whole bunch of nonsense about changing lifestyles (true), other sources of listings (true) and responsible use of natural resources (also true), but the fact is, we’re making this change because it’s a smart way to cut costs in very lean times.

Those subscribers who want the Sunday book, get it. Those who don’t, don’t. And, those who buy single copy get it, too.  Nope, we’re not increasing the price of the paper for those who “opt in,” but we’re not reducing it for those who don’t.

Details on how to opt in are on the front cover of the Sunday TV book.

I figure anyone reading this on my blog post hasn’t looked at a print television listing in years. But, if you are a subscriber and you have some burning desire to keep the printed book, you can opt in online.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ben  |  January 21st, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Why not just drop the TV book entirely? It must cost a lot to figure out how to deliver two different versions of the paper. Or maybe expand it farther. Let me opt out of the sports section, or the Live & Stykles section if I don’t read it. Will this cause a problem with advertisers in the deleted sections who feel they aren’t reaching as many readers as previously? Of course, it really doesn’t matter if the ad is in a section that would be tossed away unread anyway.

  • 2. Linda Grist Cunningham  |  January 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    The problem with dropping it completely is that some readers love that book and get really testy when it’s either not there or changes. We have some 180,000 readers of the newspaper and every one of them reads the paper differently.

    Someday, you may well be able to opt in or out of other sections. We do some of that now and will do more in the future as we get more comfortable with that kind of delivery format. And, as for the advertiser? It’s not the number of readers; it’s the quality of readers. So reaching 100 targeted readers is far better than reaching 1,000 who don’t care. In fact, TV book advertisers should get at least as good, if not better, results from the smaller, more targeted audience. This way, they KNOW the person wants and is using the TV book and that means the advertiser is reaching his or her specific audience.

  • 3. thedudeabides  |  January 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 am

    And, as for the advertiser? It’s not the number of readers; it’s the quality of readers. So reaching 100 targeted readers is far better than reaching 1,000 who don’t care. In fact, TV book advertisers should get at least as good, if not better, results from the smaller, more targeted audience.

    Well spun.

    I’ll remember to show this to my RRStar salesperson the next time he tells me about the paper’s “reach.”

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed