The Chron’s last gasp?

LogoHoustonChronicle

With traditional newspapers folding left and right, it’s no surprise that the newspaper business is no bowl of cherries these days. According to this WSJ Digits blog post, that uncertainty is prompting Houston’s main daily newspaper — the Houston Chronicle — to consider some big changes:

Hearst said its newspapers plan to hold back at least some content from their free Web sites, launching the publisher onto the vanguard of print media companies to begin charging for their digital news and information.

A top executive at Hearst, which publishes 16 newspapers including the Houston Chronicle and Seattle Post-Intelligencer, said the company is mulling how much of its online offerings to keep free, while reserving some content exclusively for people who pay.

“Exactly how much paid content to hold back from our free sites will be a judgment call made daily by our management, whose mission should be to run the best free Web sites in our markets without compromising our ability to get a fair price from consumers for the expensive, unique reporting and writing that we produce each day,” Steven Swartz, the president of Hearst newspapers, said in a staff memo.

The text of the staff memo is included at the end of the blog post.

Meanwhile, financial blogger Felix Salmon, who has been following the newspaper website subscription issue for the past couple of years, thinks that the Wall Street Journal’s website subscription model — which is the business model that the Chron hopes to mirror — is doomed to failure:

My feeling is that [WSJ editor Robert] Thomson was entirely right when he said that [news] commentary had become commoditized, and that therefore you couldn’t charge for it; he also said the same thing about most news. But what he calls "specialized content" is to a large degree just taking commoditized news, and adding the kind of value that comes from informed commentators.

Yes, there are things which Dow Jones the WSJ can do and no one else can do in quite the same way — Thomson was interesting when he started talking about selling content on the subject of India to Japan, for instance. And in a world where Dow Jones is looking to individual subscriptions to make up the losses from corporate subscriptions, it’s going to be very difficult for them to start slashing those individual subscription rates to zero.

But I suspect that eventually the WSJ will do the math and work out that the best way to monetize and grow its large number of unique visitors is to maximize the time they spend on the site. And the best way to do that is to go free.

Give the Chronicle credit for taking risks in a battle for survival rather than simply fading away as many other newspapers are doing. However, I am not convinced that the Chron’s pay-for-some-content approach has much of a chance of succeeding.

Frankly, the Chronicle simply does not appear capable of producing the type of specialized content that is necessary even to have a chance of generating the level of individual subscriptions that will be necessary for success.

For example, the Chron was inexplicably behind other major newspapers and blogs in its coverage of the recent Stanford Financial Group scandal. Its follow-up coverage really has not provided any meaningful content that cannot be found elsewhere from free news sources and blogs.

Moreover, even where the Chron indisputably takes the lead in regard to a local story of national interest — such as the newspaper’s excellent coverage of the various legal cases involving former U.S. District Judge Sam Kent or its amazing coverage of Hurricane Ike — the information generated is still not sufficiently distinguishable from other free news sources so that readers will be likely to pay for the content.

Don’t get me wrong. The Chronicle is not without talent. Tech columnist Dwight Silverman is one of the most-respected writers in his field. Science reporter Eric Berger does a fine job, and Todd Ackerman has done a first-rate job of covering the Medical Center for years. Ditto for Nancy Sarnoff in regard to local real estate. The Chron sports bloggers Stephanie Stradley, Lance Zierlein and Zac Levine provide better content and analysis than the Chron’s sportswriters. I’m leaving others out who also do a fine job.

But is the specialized product that such talent generates sufficient to induce enough online readers to pay for content so that the Chronicle can transform itself into a profitable web-based news provider?

When even longtime Chronicle subscribers are seriously thinking about giving up their subscriptions, I have my doubts.

8 thoughts on “The Chron’s last gasp?

  1. “However, I am not convinced that the Chron’s pay-for-some-content approach has much of a chance of succeeding.”
    That is the understatement of the year. Yahoo does a far better job in providing sports coverage. And I have utter contempt for the Chronicle’s handling of national politics and local issues. We can only hope that this newspaper goes bankrupt and closes in the near future. It has done enormous damage to the Houston area. The Chronicle will not be missed.

  2. Personally, I was always a fan of the late, lamented Houston Post. It had a better sports section, and the Lynn Ashby column.
    The Chron always seemed to be more in the mode of USA Today or an expensive comic book.
    What does a print newspaper offer today that may or may not be available on line? For me, it’s the box scores and transactions listings in the sports section, and the large crossword puzzle on Sunday.

  3. “For me, it’s the box scores and transactions listings in the sports section…”
    Have you ever visited the various on-line sports websites? They constantly update the box scores and transactions. The Chronicle’s paper edition is minimally a few hours behind.

  4. I’m not a fan of Ackerman since he got pinched for plagiarism, but I agree with you on the other personnel you mentioned.
    I’m puzzled, though, by why Shelby Hodge is still employed, and why her columns are off-limits to readers’ comments.

  5. ** Yahoo does a far better job in providing sports coverage. **
    Not really. Yahoo does a faster job of updating statistics. But that’s not my idea of covering the local teams, with beat reporters who get you the inside skinny. THAT is where the local paper should beat Yahoo/AP or any other national publication. Unfortunately, the Chron sports section is one of its weakest — many of the beat writers come off more as fanboys, and the columnists are not good.
    ** And I have utter contempt for the Chronicle’s handling of national politics and local issues. **
    What do you mean by “Chronicle’s handling?”
    If you are talking about editorial, I agree. And if you are even talking national more broadly, I will agree to an extent, although I do give the current crew credit for trying to be relevant (with many online interviews, blog posts, and the like).
    If you are talking about local news coverage, I think it’s actually improved quite a bit in recent years, and I’m curious what it is you find so objectionable in the reporting being done by people like Matt Stiles, Carolyn Feibel, Bradley Olson, Liz Austin Peterson, and Rosanna Ruiz (to name a few)?
    Now, the metro columnists are a different story — they add hardly any value to the enterprise, and should be replaced with more beat reporters.
    ** The Chronicle is not without talent. Tech columnist Dwight Silverman is one of the most-respected writers in his field. Science reporter Eric Berger does a fine job, and Todd Ackerman has done a first-rate job of covering the Medical Center for years. Ditto for Nancy Sarnoff in regard to local real estate.
    [snip]
    But is the specialized product that such talent generates sufficient to induce enough online readers to pay for content so that the Chronicle can transform itself into a profitable web-based news provider? **
    Probably not, but I think you’ve misstated the problem somewhat.
    Good tech and science writing is all over the web. Whatever the talents of Silverman and Berger, that is not a uniquely compelling reason for local people to pay for the newspaper. Ackerman and Sarnoff cover issues that are sufficiently local that yes, you’ll notice if they’re gone. But who is going to replace the local news reporters I just named? Or for that matter, the sports beat reporters?
    Please don’t tell me Yahoo/AP. That’s really no replacement. I’d be willing to pay for the local news reporting I mentioned, and even local sports (although the latter certainly could use a housecleaning). Surely in this age of blowing cash without much thought on mp3s and iphone apps there is someone willing to pay, say, $5/month for local news done well… Surely! If not, shame on us.

  6. Kevin, I think both Silverman and Berger tailor their coverage of tech and science respectively to local interests so that they provide a service that has value for a local subscriber. They generate the type of product that I would be happy to pay for.
    I agree with you also that some of the Chron’s local reporters provide specialized content that many folks will pay money to read. The coverage of Judge Kent and Hurricane Ike are recent examples of that.
    However, my sense is that the Chron’s problem is that it has failed to generate specialized content of true value throughout all or even most of its sections. For example, can you think of anything in either the sports or business sections of the Chronicle that you would pay to read online? I can’t.
    As probably with you, I am a reasonably happy subscriber to the WSJ online edition. I see no reason that I wouldn’t also be a content subscriber to a Chronicle online edition except for the fact that Chronicle sections such as sports and business provide little or nothing of value. Unless that changes, my sense is that the Chron’s foray into the website subscription model will fail.

  7. WHY do newspapers try this sort of thing, anyway? If the newspaper is good and has a good website with timely news and interesting “community” stories, there is SO much advertising dollars that can be made. And the overhead of an “online” paper is SO much better than the overhead of a regular newspaper.

  8. I think Angela hit the nail right on the head. Although I think that because of the internet we can get our news and sports commentary from other sources I believe that if a papaer has great content to offer they could make a killing on advertising. why pay for it when I can get it free.

Leave a Reply to Tom K.Cancel reply