Changing Times
 

BY DAVID Chappell

NEWSPAPERS are still very much alive in the daily battle for survival in this fast changing world

We live in a changing world, a world where keeping pace with the news has never been easier. The technology-savvy generation of today has never had it better: freed from the shackles of the traditional news outlets of television, radio and newspapers young people now have the world literally at their fingertips.

They have limited time and they have widespread choice and that is bad news for the good old newspaper.

Confronted by internet portal sites, blackberry and other assorted handheld devices, blogs and instant mobile phone messaging, not to mention cable, satellite and terrestrial television 24-hour rolling news channels, how can the traditional newspaper survive?

And it's not as if we weren't warned. Circulation figures, for so long the barometer of success and failure, have been declining steadily for years. For a start how about changing the rules - ditch the ABC circulation figures for a new method of calibrating success.

Enter the era of "readership" figures as newspaper executives argue that an emphasis on readership better reflects what their companies are becoming - multi-dimensional media conglomerates with growing internet sites and stakes in television, radio, magazines and other businesses.

While circulation loss itself is not that debilitating from a revenue standpoint, advertising rates are set according to circulation figures. It's a vicious circle. Less advertising revenue increases pressure on costs and inevitably a drive for efficiency in editorial operations.

A lesser product risks pushing precious readers elsewhere. But early admittance of this has led to transparency in the market. A year ago The Times was selling 100,000 fewer copies at full rate than its main opposition, The Daily Telegraph. Now we are selling 25,000 more per day.

Over the same period Times Online has, by lifting its subscription barrier, gone from 1.7 million monthly users to over 4 million different users, including 2 million in the United States, and gone from a poor third in the market to clear leader.

The internet, once to be feared as an enemy, has been embraced as an invaluable ally. Diverting those funds from propping up inflated circulation to invest in editorial excellence has brought its rewards.

We have never had more readers of Times journalism while the longer our rivals delay the greater the disadvantage they will find themselves at. The decision to go compact last year has had deep ramifications for The Times.

If some of the responses from readers to our turning from a broadsheet format after 220 years to compact are to be believed it was the end of civilisation as we know it.

This was the final evidence that the bastion of establishment media had "dumbed down" to an indecent degree. But we must remember that much of the prejudice against tabloid newspapers here is fuelled by the antics of the racy popular titles and dates back to the 1960s and 1970s.

The Times, while recognising the commercial imperatives, needed to take its larger constituency of readers with it and was in a position of being able to offer both formats at the same time. It was a question of both reassuring its readers and replicating the qualities of the broadsheet in the alternative format.

For the best part of a year, from September 2003 to October 2004, The Times produced two versions of the same paper six days a week - a massive production task. So rapid was the increase in demand for the compact during that summer that the decision to go fully compact arrived quickly.

Trials in Scotland, the West Country and Ireland with no promotional backing proved an extraordinary success (between 24 and 48 per cent increases) and in October 2004 the switch could no longer be held off.

I mentioned the identification of "scrolling skills" earlier and there is no doubt that those work better in compact format than in a broadsheet. It is why the front page has only one story, why story labelling and placement has changed and why the compact Times echoes screen-based design.

The Editor penned a note to readers in the paper explaining the move and a call centre set up to deal with complaints.

In the event, the telephonists were not as busy as had been feared, the calls running at 10 per cent of the expected levels. Clearly the smaller format was attractive to those readers of middle market tabloids seeking a more serious read. It has proved particularly attractive to female readers and - of course - commuters.

The Times has increased its market share by two per cent while the Telegraph and Guardian have declined by three and one per cent respectively.

The switch to compact has provided a true journalistic challenge, for writers, sub-editors, page designers, picture operatives and graphic artists. Even advertising executives have had to change their ways in the shapes they sell.

"Essentially you want every large story to have two points of entry, not just through the traditional headline," Robert Thomson says. "What you are trying to get from a reader is a commitment to engage.

People are extremely busy and our greatest enemy, as journalists, is time. How do you give readers information quickly, ensuring that, even if they have only spent 12 minutes with you rather than 25, they have picked up certain facts about everything from allergies to forecasts about the state of the British air force?"

It has meant more decisive editing - whereas a broadsheet page could accommodate five, six and seven stories now decisions have to be made on page leads. Reporters have had to learn a different versatility.

Picture editors are trying to illustrate twice the number of stories, graphic artists have greater scope for main page illustrations. These are challenging and exciting times for Times journalists. (This is an excerpt from the speech given by the Deputy Managing Editor, The Times, to Harry Brittain Fellows).

(Courtesy - Deccan Herald)