It's here! It's here! All the local news headlines you need to know about, delivered straight to your e-mail box and from there to your little grey brain.
Learn more about it here.
Sign up at the handy link below.
CLICK HERE to get on board with your very own MISCmedia MAIL subscription!
irwin allen's 'the time tunnel' (1966), via scaryfilm.blogspot.com
…building businesses whose only way of making money will be through advertising. Are there as many different ways to slice things as all the startups, collectively, would have you believe? And when they’re done, what will happen to them?
one of rob vasquez's many out-of-print 45s, via aarongilbreath.wordpress. com
(No snickering jokes from this corner about a certain three-digit number.)
artist's rendering; via kiro-tv
t.j. mullinax, yakima herald-republic
The Seattle Times‘ series about Amazon.com’s corporate culture continued on Monday with a long recounting of the company’s often prickly relations with book publishers large and small; especially small.
I’ve written in the past that the six U.S. mega-publishers could sure use a “creative disruption” (to use a hoary techno-Libertarian cliché), to sweep away their hidebound old ways and become more nimble, more competitive, and more profitable.
These same new rules, once everybody’s figured out what they are, could also help out smaller imprints.
But in the meantime (which could seem like an eternity in dot-com years but the blink of an eye in book-biz years), Amazon should not push too far against the “long tail” publishers and distributors who make its “World’s Largest Selection” slogan possible.
It’s bad for the publishers and their authors.
It’s bad for the industry as a whole.
And it’s bad for Amazon.
The e-tail giant had better realize, and soon, that it doesn’t have the market muscle to push its suppliers around like Walmart does.
Except to owners of Kindle machines (which are hardwired to only download commercial ebooks if they’re from Amazon), everything its core media business sells can be bought from other sources, just a mouse click or a search-engine hunt away.
Also, many of these smaller publishers have loyal niche clienteles.
All they have to do is offer lower prices or “customer loyalty” incentives to folks buying books on the publishers’ own sites.
Or, the small pubishers could offer all sorts of “customer loyalty” incentives to their direct buyers.
It’s to Amazon’s own fiscal interest to not appear like a bully here.
Today’s lesson in why traditional websites can’t support professional local news begins at a blog called Seattle Media Maven.
It’s run as a moonlighting project by Maureen Jeude, who’s got a day job in the Seattle Times’ “strategic marketing research” department. While the blog is her own endeavor, Jeude often uses it to tout the Times and its online ventures.
Thusly, Jeude ran a piece last month plugging the Times‘ website as one of the top local media sites in the nation. She posts stats and a graph showing the site garnering about 1 million page views per day (twice that of the local runner-up, KING5.com), and 1 million unique visitors per month.
This means each Times online reader reads an average of just one article a day.
Further, if each of the 240,000 Times print buyers (not counting “pass along” readership) read only the average four stories on each edition’s front page, that alone would essentially match the Times’ online readership.
And that online readership is the 16th biggest of any U.S. newspaper.
•
Elsewhere in medialand, three research studies in the past year (by A.C. Nielsen, the FCC, and Pew Research) each purport that news sites comprise only a small percentage of total Web traffic, and that local news sites comprise only a small percentage of that.
One industry analyst, Tom Grubisich, says the studies fatally discount the role of links and summaries of news sites’ stories on other sites such as Facebook.
Another analyst, Joshua Benton, insists that news sites’ readerships make up in community influence what they lack in sheer numbers.
The Seattle Times editorial board advocates for the rich and powerful in Washington state every day. They have used their editorial page to attack any proposal that would lay a finger on the 1% or their expansive stock portfolios. At the same time, they do their best to ensure kids, seniors, and low-income families absorb billions in budget cuts year after year.
esquire.com
Welcome to daylight savings time. Welcome to the “light” half of the year. Welcome to the little piece of manmade trickery that tells us the worst of the cold, dark time is over. Even though it sure didn’t look or feel like it today.
supervillain.wordpress.com
american institute of architects—seattle
storebrandsdecisions.com
wallyhood.org
My adventure in Bellingham this past Sunday was cold but lovely. Will post a complete post about it a little later on.
And I’ve got another presentation coming up this Saturday, right here in Seattle! It’s at 2 p.m. at the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, 319 2nd Ave. S. in pontificous Pioneer Square. (That’s right across from Zeitgeist Coffee.) This one concerns my ’06 book Vanishing Seattle, and perhaps all the things that have vanished around here since then. Be there or be frostbitten.
Now, to catch up with a little randomness:
seattle times, nov. 24, 2001; 8 wide sections for 25 cents
The Seattle Times suddenly raised its cover price to $1 today. Retailers had been notified in advance, but readers hadn’t. Not even a bottom-front-page “To Our Readers” notice. The paper’s corporate website still lists a single copy price of $.75.
What does the extra quarter get you? Not more content. Tuesday’s paper was a recent record-low 24 pages. It had been this thin a few times in the past couple of years, but only on Mondays or post-holiday Tuesdays (i.e., days without stock listings). When you factor in today’s narrower page sizes, the SeaTimes hasn’t been this small since the days of WWII paper rationing.
I hadn’t noticed when it happened, but the Sunday Pacific Northwest Magazine section now appears to be printed on cheaper paper, the same kind of stock used by the Varsity Theater film calendar.
Meanwhile, the paper’s editorial staff has completed moving into the former furniture warehouse next to the 13 Coins restaurant. Other departments (ad sales, circulation, management) will move in as their new, smaller office spaces get installed. For now, the John Street front office and mailing address remain.
To try to quantify the paper’s shrinkage, I’ve been looking up its past online staff-directory pages, as maintained at the Wayback Machine site (web.archive.org).
But first, let’s review the page’s current incarnation. It lists 134 editorial employees (not counting a few executives listed twice). These include 35 local news reporters and columnists (including two listed as “on leave” (unpaid)), 35 reporters and writers in the paper’s other sections, and 12 photographers.
This is the same as the final Post-Intelligencer staff list from early 2009. (The P-I had a couple more people in some sections, a couple fewer in others; but the total’s alike.)
Remember, the print P-I didn’t put out a Sunday paper, and hadn’t since 1983. The same staffing level at today’s Times is thus spread more thinly. Especially since the Times continues to support long, research-heavy, Sunday “cover stories.”
On Jan. 15, 2009, near the time of the print P-I‘s end, the Times staff page listed 150 editorial staffers. These included 37 local news reporters/columnists, 45 writers in the other sections, and 15 photographers. The Times was about to decimate its weekday “living” section, a move planned before the P-I closure was announced.
In contrast, the Times staff page for Dec. 4, 2001 boasts a whopping 281 names.
But this difference seems even more drastic than it is.
That’s because the 2001 staff page lists several job categories that got dropped from the page in later years. They include 10 “news artists” (map makers and illustrators), plus a total of 80 copy editors, wire editors, page-layout designers, researchers, and other assistants.
The P-I‘s 2009 staff page listed four artists and 36 of these other assorted personnel. Today’s Times probably employs at least that many or more, what with all the Sunday and Sunday-preview pages to fill with wire and syndicated matter.
In an apples-to-apples comparison, the 2001 Times employed 53 local news reporters and columnists, 66 writers in the other sections, and 15 photographers.
Those included separate Eastside and Snohomish County bureaus.
They also included such now exotic sounding job titles as “home economist” (recipes editor), “assistant metro editor, metro growth,” and “director, brand and content development.”
Also remember that in a 2006 lawsuit, the P-I (which was then trying to stay in business, despite its unfortunate position in a Times-controlled Joint Operating Agreement) alleged that Times management employed more people than it had to, so the Times could claim it was losing money and thus legally kill the JOA (and with it, the P-I).
During the JOA, the Times had to share profits with the P-I.
Now the Times gets to shoulder its losses alone. (Be careful what you etc. etc.)
smith tower construction, from seattle municipal archive