More Bad News for Print: WSJ, Time, & Forbes

Although the Wall St. Journal's front page had a positive story about the economy, "Economy Snaps Long Slump," it's clear we're not out of the woods yet.

Need more convincing? This morning's breaking news, Consumer Spending Tumbled, now appears on wsj.com above the story it now contradicts ("long slump").

That perhaps explains recent media moves:

• "Time Inc. Is Expected to Eliminate More Jobs": The $100 million in cuts is expected to come largely from layoffs, which comes after 600 layoffs last year.
• Forbes announced on Monday that it was dismissing 40 to 60 people from its editorial staff. According to an early Times story, "Depending on how you count, there are about 200 editorial employees at the magazine. And depending on who you talk to, at least 40 people could be cut, while one source who was not authorized to speak about the layoffs said the number could go as high as 60."
• Wall St. Journal to close its Boston bureau, according to the Boston Globe. The bureau, which covers health care, education, and financial services, will close Dec. 31. The paper will shift most of the coverage to its New York office...According to Robert Christie, a Journal spokesman, said the paper does not plan to close any of its other 36 news bureaus. “We are not giving up on the beats; we are just relocating them,’’ he said. “A lot of the companies that we used to cover are no longer in Boston and a lot of the jobs that were in Boston could be located anywhere in the US.’’

What's interesting is that even as the Journal reported good news about the economy, it is continuing to look at ways to cut costs. Furthermore, the Journal also is beefing up its tech coverage, called Biz Tech Tuesdays. Guess it won't feature much New England tech.

I think if the Journal can close its Boston bureau, it and other papers will close other bureaus, too, especially those that can be covered by regional hubs. For example, expect that there could be consolidation of all the San Francisco and Silicon Valley bureaus out there.

US Chamber of Crisis Lands on the Front Page of the Wall St. Journal

The US Chamber continues to respond to criticism of its positions on climate control and other issues by taking a tougher stance on what its trying to achieve.

So from one perspective, the US Chamber has successfully raised awareness of the organization. Today, it scored a front-page Wall St. Journal article, "No Deal: Chamber Chief Battles Obama."

Not bad for an organization that had been called a sleeping giant.

But is this tough go-it-alone stance going to pay off in the end? Will the visibility drive companies to embrace and support it or push them in an opposite direction?

Seems to me there could be an opportunity for another business-focused organization that is willing to be less intransigent, more interested in dialog. (As an example of how unwilling the US Chamber is, it wouldn't even talk to the Wall St. Journal on the above article.)

When all is said and done, I think the US Chamber will have raised awareness of the organization and will have also hurt its reputation. Because at some point, Congress will enact new legislation, which is sure to be a compromise, and I'd bet the US Chamber will not win -- which its critics could characterize as a loss.

I think a take-no-prisoners approach is much more difficult in a Web 2.0 world, where a lot more people can respond and make their views known. And in an environment that encourages engagement, the fact that the US Chamber is not engaging is a mistake.

Are Add-on Ticket Fees the Dark Side of the Force of "Star Wars in Concert" -- Or the myth of frictionless eCommerce

One of the aspects of e-commerce that we all accept on faith is that it is "frictionless," that the Internet removes or reduces barriers to doing business that otherwise increase what consumers pay.

The result: low prices from online retailers.

But that's not always the case.

Take, for example, purchasing event tickets online. There are often additional charges, not fewer, when buying event tickets.

My kids love Star Wars, so I looked into tickets for the Stars Wars in Concert tour.

Turns out the tickets show the Dark Side of the Star Wars in Concert -- at least in Boston.

Prices for the tickets are $72.50.

But wait. There's more.

You also have to pay a "Facility Charge," though there's no explanation for that. The Facility Charge is $2.50 per ticket.

You also have to pay a pretty stiff "Convenience Charge."There's no explanation for the "Convenience Charge," especially since I believe you can't buy these tickets at the TD Garden, where the tour plays in Boston. But that convenience will cost you $11.65 per ticket.

So far, you're paying $86.65 for your $72.50 tickets. Talking about arbitrage. I'd love to invest in the ability to buy tickets for $72.50 and make $14.15 with no real effort.

But what, there's one thing I left out.

There's also a charge to print up the tickets on your own computer -- $2.50 per order. That's not a lot of money, but they're charging you for your ink and paper -- when they have no cost involved in letting you print the tickets yourself. You're actually saving them money. (That's why the airlines prefer you print your tickets yourself.) If you don't want to print them up yourself, you can order them by standard mail, which is free -- even though they have to print it up, put it in the envelope (which they also have to purchase) and mail it with a stamp.

Seems to me that should be reversed: they should charge you for sending tickets by regular mail, and let you print them up for free.

Perhaps that's a problem in Boston.

In Providence, Star Wars in Concert costs $73.00 (or $0.50 more than in Boston) while the Facility Charge is $2.00 (or $0.50 less than in Boston. While the Convenience Charge is $9.85 (or $1.80 less than Boston). Meanwhile, in Bridgeport, CT, concert tickets cost $85.25, with no additional charges.

I guess it works out in the end since the price is about the same in those three markets. Yet I hate to pay a Convenience Charge when there's really no convenience or when it helps the vendor as much as it help the consumer.

And I don't like to pay to download tickets when, again, this is something that saves them money and work.

In the end, though my children are big Star Wars fans, I decided not to purchase the tickets as a bit of a protest. Don't charge me for convenience that actually helps you make more money.

Print Edition of Computerworld Now Hits Twice a Month

Computerworld is changing the frequency of its print edition -- acknowledging that news doesn't wait for weekly production schedules. Now Computerworld will print twice a month.

They're still covering news online.

And will keep a News Analysis section in the print edition.

As it is the print edition continues to shrink. Wonder it the next move is to become a monthly.

Steve Ballmer & the "New Normal" or How Microsoft Regained its Mojo and All I Got was this Right-Sized Operating System

Ah, the "New Normal." I remember when I first started using that term, Nov. 7, 2008 in a post, Layoffs & PR Strategy.

Since then, a lot of people have climbed on that bandwagon.

The latest: Steve Ballmer of Microsoft.

C'mon in, Steve, the water's, um, lower than it used to be.

Ballmer defines the new normal as including the "The New Efficiency: With Less, Do More." How's that different from the old efficiency -- glad you asked: in the new efficiency, companies must "increase productivity and find ways to deliver new value to customers."

How can you achieve that new efficiency? Glad you asked. Ballmer says, "a new generation of business solutions is transforming IT into a strategic asset that makes it possible to cut costs without crippling customer service or constraining workforce creativity and effectiveness."

Those new solutions might be led by Windows 7, which finally shipped last week.

Look, it can be easy being snarky about this. But it's also worth hearing what Ballmer says he is smart, he does run Microsoft, and his vision will be difficult to avoid, even if you're a Mac. Check out "Microsoft CEO on ‘The New Normal.’"

On the other hand, the latest Journal interview with Balmmer, with a headline he can't like -- Ballmer Tries Bringing Back Microsoft's Mojo" -- quotes him using a lot of buzz words and vague predictions and qualifications of those predictions. For example:

We took actions as a business to make sure we had our cost structure right-sized. And hopefully with a recovery, we're right-sized. If things meander along, we're right-sized. And both of those are possible, and maybe other things not as positive are possible.

Ok, anyone else find the key message he wanted to convey? I have to assume Microsoft's mojo has been right-sized...if only because he sprinkles the term five times throughout the interview.

He also says he wished he had "message with our employees" earlier than he did. I think he meant "talked with." Messaged as a verb seems very top-down, but not very engaging, which is more the Web 2.0 approach.

To keep this post right-sized, I'm going to stop here. Thanks for reading.

Should the Government Subsidize Newspapers?

For the past year, some journalists and editors have suggested that one way to help print journalism is to get government subsidies.

Now, in the past, the government has used farm subsidies to enact policy. So we had farmers paid not to farm, for example.

Would we pay journalists not to write -- if so, how do I get in line for that? Would the government reward papers for certain types of coverage (more patriotic news) and penalize them by cutting back support for other types of coverage (like reporting on scandals among politicians)?

I do believe that newspapers are important to our democracy working. The question is how to support them when the market isn't. I don't think subsidies are the way to go, and neither does Seth Lipsky, former editor at the Forward and the New York Sun. Check out his Journal op-ed,
All the News That's Fit to Subsidize, http://bit.ly/1IB35a.

And note, the swipe at the Times.

Does More Housework Mean More Sex? -- Or other questions you didn't expect to read about in the Wall St. Journal

Is the Wall St. Journal, in an attempt to broaden its readership, going soft?

The Journal, which battled the New York Times in covering the travails of the super rich, seems to be opening a new front: women-focused features.

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week, the Journal ran soft feature news on the front-page of its Personal Journal section.

On Tues.: "Lies, Damned Lies and Lies to Tell Your Spouse," which featured more responses from women about why they lie than men (who didn't really respond to the article).

On Wed.: "Does More Housework Mean More Sex?," which makes the case that the more husbands handle housework, the more sex they get. The article doesn't actually use the term quid pro quo, but might as well.

Interesting articles, but even though written by long-time Journal reporters, Elizabeth Bernstein and Sue Shellenbarger, the latter the "Work & Family" columnist, it seems like a new front for the Journal vs. the Times. At the least, a bit risque for the Journal, and perhaps evidence of Murdoch tarting up the Journal (as he has done with every other newspaper in the News Corp. portfolio).

The question: how will the Times respond?