Detroit Free Press redesign

When I first glimpsed it - on a table in the waiting room of the dentist's office this morning - my first thought was "abomination," a completion of the USA Today-ization of the Freep, since Gannet owns both. Now, upon sober second inspection, it just seems like they've homogenized it to look like every other newspaper in a secondary city market. Whereas the FP used to have [[up to Sunday) a striking, clear and engaging design - one of the most coherent and tightly-laid out papers in the US - that's all gone out the window for generic style headline fonts and lots of bland gray columns and white space. Yuck!!

The website is even worse. A mess of intrusive ads, popups and unrelated auto-play videos.

Although it saddens me, I accepted several years ago that newspapers are obsolete [[some paper websites are still strong). But the papers themselves are pretty worthless. Rarely much news in them, outdated [[relative to online info), they are generic and interchangeable. Detroit's papers are not [[anymore) better than little town newspapers. And they do look the same. Even "major" papers like the NY Times & Wall Street Journal, are shadows of their former selves. And they, too, have been dumbed down and rendered smaller. I mourned papers years ago; we will wake up a few years from now when they exist not at all.

I stopped going to most newspaper and TV station websites long ago. The only time I see one now is if I click a link from one of the many news aggregators which is becoming less and less often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

I stopped going to most newspaper and TV station websites long ago. The only time I see one now is if I click a link from one of the many news aggregators which is becoming less and less often.

---

This is what is killing newspapers. Please read your local news, it is the best source of information.

It saddens me to see such a great brand get gobbled up by the company. Unfortunately, it makes things easier for the company that owns the Free Press. As someone who works for a newspaper, I understand budgets and keeping things under the line, but as a journalist, it's very upsetting to see things redesigned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zads07

It saddens me to see such a great brand get gobbled up by the company. Unfortunately, it makes things easier for the company that owns the Free Press. As someone who works for a newspaper, I understand budgets and keeping things under the line, but as a journalist, it's very upsetting to see things redesigned.

---

I've been reading the USA Today from day one [[think it was 1982?).

Its much worse today than it was 35 years ago.

As far as websites, many redesigned websites are worse than what they replaced.

The papers crushed their ad revenue about 8-9 years ago when they installed new presses.

They made a big deal of it. Sharper letters would be easier to read, etc.

But what they also did was increase the number of columns from like 3 to 5. Even in the classifieds.

The number of letters per line was reduced by 30%,.. meaning that you needed to buy a 5-line ad to say the same thing as you could previously say with 3 lines. It amounted to a 60+ % increase in price.

In a matter of months the classifieds section went from 20 pages to 2.

My business had run ads continuously for some 80 years. The effectiveness of them had gone down a bit in the years leading up to the new presses,.. but that one change took it from still being worthwhile to a stupid idea.

Guess everyone else felt the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zads07

It saddens me to see such a great brand get gobbled up by the company.

---

Granted, "quality journalism" is a subjective phrase, but I must have missed the time when the DFP was a "great brand". For at least three decades [[long before web competition), the DFP idea of leading front page news has consisted of 2" high headlines highlighting the most recent Detroit pro sports results, while their sports columnist frequently occupies space there as well.


Meanwhile, domestic and international issues that really matter are limited to a few brief generic AP feeds and most of the attempts at investigative journalism have been rather bland and mediocre.


As stated by others, the state of journalism [[print, in particular) is declining very quickly. Unfortunately, this deals a significant blow to democracy and the prospect of an informed, discerning public. IMO, the Free Press portended the decline, rather than being a victim of it.

That's another reason I stopped buying papers. In my view, sports are NEVER front page news, not even titles or championships.

I have to agree that newspapers are a sad reflection of what they once were, but, having learned to read from the comics, and coming from a background, before TV, when you had to read the paper in order to know what was going on, I continue to buy the daily paper and read it over breakfast. Old habits die hard. And it beats having to look at the Bernstein family and Mike Morris every couple of minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

That's another reason I stopped buying papers. In my view, sports are NEVER front page news, not even titles or championships.

---

Nope, sports are not NEVER front page news. Certainly a big title, or an uplifting community story are always front page news.

They used to have a whole sports section that was often larger than the news sections. NO reason for it ever to be on the front page.

I was a loyal newspaper reader for many years. But they got rid of the kids who would put the paper on my porch and hired drivers who would throw the paper on the end of my driveway in a plastic bag. Every time it rained the paper got soaked and was unreadable. Every time. I got tired of complaining and cancelled.

But the real reason papers are dying is because of the internet. Let’s face it – a newspaper is out of date before it lands on your doorstep. Furthermore, internet sites don’t have the overhead of a brick and mortar building, hundreds of employees, a multi-million dollar printing press and press operators and a fleet of delivery trucks. Additionally, internet sites can track and target advertising to customers better than any newspaper.

Finally there's cost of advertising. A local retailer can run a campaign online or on cable TV to customers in his trading area for less than the cost of a full-page ad in the Detroit News or Free Press.

It's the same here in my adopted home of Las Vegas. The local paper, the LV Review-Journal, has declined. I was thinking of cancelling, but they offered a year for $75 ......so I still read the morning daily. That price sure ain't bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

They used to have a whole sports section that was often larger than the news sections. NO reason for it ever to be on the front page.

---

I'm glad you don't work in newspapers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat001

But the real reason papers are dying is because of the internet. Let’s face it – a newspaper is out of date before it lands on your doorstep.

---

Pat001, all of your points are well taken, and sum up the stark reality of a changing media landscape. I would only disagree somewhat on the item quoted. That only applies with breaking news stories. At one time, newspapers also covered in-depth investigative journalism into broader issues that aren't necessarily part of the current news cycle found on the TV news or Internet clickbait headlines.

The WSJ, WaPo, NY Times, LA Times, Chi Tribune, and a handful of others still provide some of this type of content, but, again, are shadows of their former level of quality. One would have to wonder how much traction Woodward & Bernstein would have as internet reporters--or even if they could exist at all.

The big problem Newspapers have with the internet is the collapse in ad dollars. Google, Facebook, Ebay and Craigslist have destroyed the newspaper's revenue streams. It's much easier to reach your customers through the internet than through a newspaper. The lack of revenue streams mean cuts to the paper's reporting staffs. Fewer Reporters and staff = less investigation = crappier stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat001

Additionally, internet sites can track and target advertising to customers better than any newspaper.

---

That's why AdBlockers are essential. Practice safe browsing. Never do the web without protection.

Quote:

---

Finally there's cost of advertising. A local retailer can run a campaign online or on cable TV to customers in his trading area for less than the cost of a full-page ad in the Detroit News or Free Press.

---

Whose fault is that? Does it really cost them hundreds or in some cases thousands of dollars to print those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Whose fault is that? Does it really cost them hundreds or in some cases thousands of dollars to print those?

---

That's not how the business model worked. The $$ charged weren't the cost of printing the add. The $$ charged paid for the newsroom staff that created the content in the newspaper the people getting the newspaper wanted. The money people paid for the paper came nowhere close to cost of creating the content. The ad revenue is what paid for the news content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Whose fault is that? Does it really cost them hundreds or in some cases thousands of dollars to print those?

---

A full page ad in the NY Times could be $100,000. Detroit News or Freep will cost less but still not cheap.

It costs millions to put a newspaper on the street. You need a building, an office staff, reporters, photographers, editors and a multi-million dollar press, you buy ink in 50 gallon drums and two-ton rolls of newsprint by the boxcar load. You can’t run the presses w/out highly skilled press operators, and you need a fleet of trucks and delivery people to distribute the paper, yes it costs $$$$$. And the money to pay for all of the above has to come from advertising dollars. The money from paid subscriptions barely covers the cost of distribution.

On the other hand, anyone with a PC and a kitchen table can publish an online magazine or a blog for virtually no capital investment and sell advertising. Online writers get paid very little. And some online mags and blogs actually charge the writers a fee to publish their stories! And people are standing in line to do it. Take this DetroitYes site as an example. We are providing content for zero compensation and they get the ad revenue! How's that for a business model, eh??