Size matters

What size newspaper do readers want?

If a hundred readers were polled and asked if they preferred their newspaper to be bigger or smaller, I believe most would choose a smaller newspaper. But I’m an environmentalist of sorts. And I know how to find news online.

I would like to see a study of reader size preferences.

I am sure with every reader there may be a different answer. Offering a choice of sizes is an intriguing solution, but difficult to justify cost-wise. But even just two size choices might be enough to win over those who won’t pay for and don’t want a large newspaper arriving each day at the doorstep. Clearly, though, newspapers can not afford to print two different versions of the same newspaper.

Or could they?

There are an infinite number of ways to approach offering readers different versions of the newspaper.

Here are a few:

• Readers could select just the sections they want to receive.
• Readers could select a slimmed-down option for less money.
• Readers could select a free version with limited material, lots of online content teases and not much heft.
• Smaller newspapers could be produced on certain days of the week and a very affordable subscription could be offered for just those days, perhaps a slimmed down Sunday section that wraps up the week’s important news.
• You could have the environmentalist’s micro version, the financial version, the sports version, the entertainment version, …

But many questions remain, and chief among them is whether offering different versions of the newspaper would make financial sense.

Production-wise, a newsroom does not have to reinvent the wheel to produce a slimmer version. Yes, it will take more work. But it might not take too much more work.

If a choice of sections were offered, the newsroom itself would not have more work. The press room, inserters and such would have more work and delivery would be more difficult. The question is, would more subscribers be found? Or would subscribers switch to the presumably cheaper offering? Would newsprint savings make up for this? Would ad revenue fall because fewer people see every ad? Or would ads be seen by those most interested in that type of content, since they might be better targeted?

If a free version were offered, or nearly free, a designer or two might be tasked with producing this version. Reporters might have to submit their stories in short form. Or editors could create brief versions of stories to use in this version. Or only local stories could be put in the newspaper. It would require coordination and planning. It would probably require more people. Would more subscribers be found? Undoubtedly. After all, it’s free. Or close to it. Would ad revenue increase because more people see ads and market penetration is greater? Would subscription revenue plummet when subscribers switch en masse to the free or nearly free version?

I am surprised more newspapers are not experimenting with this, at least in focus groups, to see what the impact on the bottom line might be. I’m not suggesting figuring out these answers will be easy, but I hope the industry does not just write the idea off as too difficult and expensive without carefully thinking through the possibilities.

Who, though, at a newspaper would be advocating for these changes? The publisher? The editor? Marketing? It’s not a natural fit, in my opinion, for anyone. It crosses too many departments, divisions and basic operations. Nobody is going to step up and push for this. Unless the publisher does. And how many publishers are ready to take this on?

What we need, unfortunately, are some good studies on reader preferences. And a few good examples.