Managing Change: Newspaper Editors' Attitudes Toward Integrating
Marketing and Journalism
by Peter Gade,
assistant professor
H.H. Herbert School of Journalism
and Mass Communication
University of Oklahoma
1602 Avondale Dr.
Norman, OK 73069
(405)292-7441
[log in to unmask]
Paper submitted to the Media Management and Economics Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 1999 convention,
Aug. 4-7, New Orleans, La.
Managing Change: Newspaper Editors' Attitudes Toward Integrating Marketing and
Journalism
Abstract
Three types of managers emerged from this 1998 Q study of top newsroom
editors at 18 newspapers associated with the American Society of Newspaper
Editors Change Committee. One of the types believes that newspapers can, and
must, synthesize an increased marketing awareness and traditional journalism
values. Two of the types, however, are not so optimistic about the changes they
are expected to lead and manage. These two types see marketing as a threat to
journalism values and believe newspapers should preserve the "wall" of
separation between the news and business sides of the organization. All three
types think the industry is becoming more profit-driven.
Managing Change: Newspaper Editors' Attitudes Toward Integrating Marketing and
Journalism
Abstract
Three types of managers emerged from this 1998 Q study of top newsroom
editors at 18 newspapers associated with the American Society of Newspaper
Editors Change Committee. One of the types believes that newspapers can, and
must, synthesize an increased marketing awareness and traditional journalism
values. Two of the types, however, are not so optimistic about the changes they
are expected to lead and manage. These two types see marketing as a threat to
journalism values and believe newspapers should preserve the "wall" of
separation between the news and business sides of the organization. All three
types think the industry is becoming more profit-driven.
Managing Change: Newspaper Editors' Attitudes Toward Integrating
Marketing and Journalism
by Peter Gade,
assistant professor
H.H. Herbert School of Journalism
and Mass Communication
University of Oklahoma
1602 Avondale Dr.
Norman, OK 73069
(405)292-7441
[log in to unmask]
Paper submitted to the Media Management and Economics Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 1999 convention,
Aug. 4-7, New Orleans, La.
Managing Change:
Managing Change: Newspaper Editors' Attitudes
Toward Integrating Marketing and Journalism
In a move The New York Times calls "the most important merger ever of the
business side and news side of a major American newspaper," The Los Angeles
Times in fall 1997 began reorganizing its newsroom so that each section of the
paper is run as an independent business unit, with section editors teamed with
business partners (Rosenstiel, 1997). The plan, initiated by Publisher Mark
Willes, creates a market-oriented structure in which each section is expected to
pull its financial weight. "If a section can't pay its way by attracting
advertising revenue, it should at least justify itself by attracting readers" (p
A19). Willes, who doubles as CEO of the paper's parent company Times Mirror
Inc., has also diminished the role of the paper's editor, Michael Parks, by
teaming him with a business partner -- the general manager for news.
The reorganization of The Los Angeles Times is the most visible recent example
of change initiatives in the newspaper industry. The changes are driven by
several factors: a shrinking base of readers and advertisers, new electronic
media that could cut even further into this base, a perception that journalists
are out-of-touch with their audience and attempts to maintain high profits. At
their core, most of the change initiatives are attempts to realign newsroom
values more closely with those of readers and marketers. Newspapers have been
using marketing research to identify readers and better serve advertisers for 20
years (Underwood, 1993; Squires, 1993), but Willes' placement of marketing
executives into editorial management has redefined the historical wall of
separation between the business side and editorial side of newspapers. At The
Los Angeles Times, Willes is "blowing up the wall," according to a cover story
in American Journalism Review (Shepard, 1997).
Critics of Willes' restructuring, some of whom are former Times' employees,
question whether journalists at The Times view their paper as a vehicle for good
journalism or a marketing tool. They wonder if the paper, instead of producing
exemplary journalism and expecting advertisers to follow, is going to focus on
creating journalistic products aimed at specific audiences attractive to
advertisers (Shepard, 1997). Many journalists and scholars see the integration
of marketing functions as a threat to journalism independence. They argue that
for the news media to maintain credibility and perform their democratic
functions, an organizational barrier must be maintained to assure news judgments
are not made based on commercial considerations (Bagdikian, 1992; Underwood,
1993; Squires, 1993; McManus, 1994; Woo, 1998).
Willes may be the most outspoken executive about the need for greater marketing
intelligence in the newsroom, but a growing number of newspaper managers are
following his lead (Underwood, 1998). Cross-divisional teams that put editors
working with business executives to help market the paper's name, develop
features publications and revamp the editorial content of certain sections are
quickly becoming the norm. A 1998 newspaper trade journal poll found 57 percent
of the responding papers have marketing committees that include editorial
members (Coyle, 1998).
Literature Review
Change beyond the wall. The debate about the crumbling wall of separation
between news and business interests of the newspaper industry underscores a
broader change process that began several years ago. Concerned by the exodus of
readers and the uncertainties caused by the growth of the Internet, the American
Society of Newspaper Editors created a Change Committee with representatives
from newspapers that were interested in developing and experimenting with change
initiatives that would ensure the long-term viability of the industry (McGuire,
1994). In an attempt to win back readers and attract new ones, newspaper
managers began looking at ways they could: (1) reorganize their newsrooms for
better efficiency, and (2) realign their staff's news values to resemble more
closely those of readers and citizens. Ken Doctor (1995), managing editor of the
St. Paul Pioneer-Press, summed up the feelings of many editors on the committee:
We began to notice that the way we do business is archaic. An
assembly-line operation, more fitted for
the beginning of this century, still dominates, with haphazard planning,
communication and execution too
readily accepted as the way we work.... We realized
that we weren't putting the right stuff by the right
people in the right place in the paper. Everything was
being determined by a compartmentalized, departmental
system that had outgrown its usefulness (p 7).
Following a national manufacturing trend, by the mid-1990s newspaper managers
began disassembling the assembly line, creating instead self-contained work
teams. These teams flattened the traditional top-down manufacturing hierarchy by
grouping editors and reporters into six to 10-member "circles" or "pods"
responsible for reporting, writing, editing and packaging news in their coverage
areas (Albers, 1995; Stepp, 1995, April). The new team structures are usually
built around broad coverage areas, and called names such as Quality of Life,
Community Roots, Body and Soul, 911 Jump, and Ready, Go. Divided within these
coverage areas are the "beats" that newspapers traditionally covered: police,
courts, city hall, schools, etc. This restructuring of the newsroom into a
coverage system that is more in tune with topics identified by readers and focus
groups recognizes management's belief that traditional newsroom organization,
built around institutions, does not reflect the interests of the readers
(Johnson, 1993). For help designing these more efficient, reader-driven
newsrooms, the industry has increasingly looked in the past five years to
outside consultants (Shepard, 1998).
The turbulent 1990s. Change has not been directed solely toward better meeting
the interests of readers. An early 1990s recession and the escalating fixed
costs of doing business have contributed to the industry's sense of urgency to
change. On the heels of the recession, the streamlining of newspaper companies
resulted in widespread layoffs and buyouts, reductions in news holes,
elimination of zoned editions and -- in an alarmingly high number of cases --
the merger or complete shutdown of newspapers ("Staff Reductions," 1996).
Executives explained the belt-tightening as necessary to preserve the long-term
viability of newspapers as a mass medium (Stepp, 1995, April). The buzzwords for
this 1990s approach to producing newspapers range from "strategic journalism" to
"reader-driven journalism" to "market-driven journalism" (Bedal, 1995). However,
faced with smaller staffs and tighter editorial budgets, many newspaper managers
are reorganizing and expanding job descriptions, finding themselves in the
unenviable position of attempting to do more to entice readers and advertisers
with fewer resources.
Economically, newspaper executives can point to the past few years as
vindication for their cost-cutting and restructuring. Although circulation
remains flat, the re-emphasis on meeting the demands of the marketplace, helped
along by a strong national economy and unexpected lower newsprint costs in 1996,
propelled some companies to record profits (Neuwirth, 1998). Gannett, the
nation's largest newspaper company in terms of circulation, saw its 1996 net
income from all sources increase 97.6 percent to $943 million, with total
revenues up 18.1 percent to $4.42 billion. In 1997, the company did even better.
"Record revenues, record operating profits," Gary Watson, president of Gannett's
newspaper division, reported at the annual PaineWebber media conference (p 14).
Knight-Ridder's 1996 net income from all sources soared 67.4 percent, with
operating income from the newspaper division up 35 percent ("Profits Take Off,"
1997). The company's 1997 operating profit margin topped 16 percent, its highest
in a dozen years.
Industry-wide, profit levels have rebounded to mid-1980s levels, which are
approximately three times higher than the average for Fortune 500 companies
(Morton, 1996). Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann called 1997 "the most successful year
in the history of the Wall Street Journal." New York Times Co. CEO Russell T.
Lewis announced the company "is firing on all cylinders" (Neuwirth, p 14). The
performance is in sharp contrast to the recessionary early 1990s, when investors
and media pundits were calling newspapers an old-fashioned and declining medium.
The turn-around has been so strong that Editor & Publisher, the leading journal
of newspaper managers, reports "1998 promises to be a year in which newspapers
will be taking every opportunity to increase profit margins in the face of
steadily growing fixed costs" (p 14).
Downside of change. Critics contend that one has to walk only from the board
room to the newsroom to see that the methods used to achieve the extraordinarily
high short-term profits may have dangerous long-term effects. Smaller staffs
producing newspaper content that is increasingly driven by pleasing readers,
advertisers and Wall Street analysts has some industry experts and long-time
journalists fearing that newspapers are sacrificing their "core competency" and
competitive advantage -- the reporting of news (Jones, 1996; Meyer, 1995).
Washington Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser, the former editor of Gannett's Des
Moines Register, charges that newspaper companies have "unreasonable and
unconscionable profit margin expectations" that take the focus of newspapering
away from journalism (Stein, 1997, p 12). Many industry analysts say the profit
motive is much the same as in other industries -- to keep companies' stock
attractive to potential investors. For newspapers, that means keeping profit
levels near 20 percent (Jones, 1996). Many of these same critics argue the
market-driven approach jeopardizes the newspaper industry's historic role of
informing citizens about the issues and functions of a democratic society.
Furthermore, the extent and rate of change in newsrooms has had an effect on
morale. Much of the resistance to change comes from journalists who think that
newspapers are hurting their credibility by adopting a marketing mentality when
the economy is surging and profits are strong (Underwood, 1998). Some of the
nation's leading editors have been outspoken against the use of consultants who
don't understand the subtleties of the industry. In the name of better serving
readers, many journalists find it ironic that editors in the market-driven
environment are more concerned about offending advertisers, whose interests are
often at odds with readers looking for solid consumer coverage. There is
evidence that layoffs, restructuring and a redefinition of news in more economic
terms has left many journalists confused and disheartened, wondering if they are
being asked to sell the soul of their craft for increased market shares (Davis,
1996; Finucane, 1996; Stepp, 1995, October; Underwood, 1998).
Management attitudes toward change. Although changing reader interests,
emerging new media and antiquated assembly-line newsrooms render the necessity
of change clear, the direction that changes are taking the newspaper industry
and the processes of implementing these changes are being widely debated, even
as changes occur. These debates about the direction of change and the change
process have been limited generally to the trade journals. Little research has
focused on the impact of increasingly common newsroom innovations in structure,
philosophy and practice.
This Q methodology study asked top newsroom managers at newspapers leading
industry-wide change about their attitudes and beliefs concerning change and the
issues driving it. The concourse of Q statements was created to address several
research questions:
--To what extent do newsroom managers see change as
serving the goals of journalism, marketing, or both?
--How are newsroom managers integrating their increased marketing awareness
with the traditional journalism values?
--How does management perceive it has done leading the
change process?
--Does management at different size newspapers perceive change differently?
Methods
To focus on newspapers that have experienced change, the 1997 ASNE Change
Committee annual report was used to draw a purposive sample. Seventeen
newspapers had top managers who were members of the 1997 Change Committee or the
papers' experiments with change were discussed in the committee's annual report.
Three newspapers -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Kansas City Star; The Los Angeles
Times -- were added to this group because of their experiments with change on
issues relevant to this study (news values, structure, overall newsroom
culture).
The publisher or top news executive at each of the 20 newspapers was telephoned
in April 1998 and asked to permit the paper's management to participate in the
study. Only two -- Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times and Charlotte (N.C.) Observer ---
declined to participate. The 18 newspapers in the sample are (by circulation
from smallest to largest): Columbia Missourian; DeKalb (Ill.) Daily Chronicle;
The Missoulian (Mont.); Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald; Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times;
Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance Star; Bakersfield Californian; Wichita (Kan.)
Eagle; Honolulu Advertiser; The (Colorado Springs , Colo.) Gazette; Columbia
(S.C.) State; Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune; Dayton (Ohio) Daily News; Charlotte
(N.C.) Observer; San Jose Mercury News; St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Kansas City
Star; The (Portland) Oregonian; Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Los Angeles
Times.
A census of the top newsroom managers at each paper was included in the sample.
Each paper identified its top 10 to 12 newsroom managers, or those people at the
rank of department head, section editor or team leader and above. At the smaller
papers, there were not 10 positions at this rank or higher, and at some of the
larger papers, there were a few more than 12 managers in these positions. These
managers were chosen because they create, implement and oversee newsroom
policies and procedures. A total of 182 managers from the 18 newspapers were
sent Q sort packets.
Q methodology was used to explore newsroom management's attitudes toward change
for two reasons: (1) by organizational nature, the number of top newsroom
managers is small, and Q studies work well with small samples; and (2) Q
methodology provides managers an opportunity to integrate journalistic and
marketing goals in a way that is meaningful to them.
Q (McKeown and Thomas, 1988) is a method that allows for the scientific study
of subjectivity. The major concern of the method is not to understand how many
people believe or hold specific values, but to explore how and why they believe
what they do. McKeown and Thomas describe Q methodology as "a strategy linking
qualitative and quantitative analyses" (p 36). The researcher's observational
perspective, unlike other quantitative methods, is on individual respondents;
thus, small samples are acceptable and actually preferred because it is easier
to control sampling error.
Q is a self-referent methodology, allowing the respondent to create his or her
own meaning from the stimulus based on the respondent's understanding and
experience. Respondents sort statements, rank-ordering them along a continuum of
agree to disagree. Q methodology requires respondents to make subtle
differentiations between their level of agreement on each statement. The
managers' reality becomes represented by considering all the statements as a
whole. This approach should yield results that reveal more clearly the complex
intricacies of managers' perceptions of journalism and marketing.
Results
Q-sort packets were mailed to the top 182 newsroom managers at the 18
newspapers in the study. The sorts were self-administered. Of the 68 responses,
there were 64 completed, usable sorts; a response rate of 35.2 percent. There
was at least one respondent from each of the 18 newspapers.
The sorts were initially subjected to principal axes factor analysis. Varimax
rotation then yielded three, four and five factor solutions that had eigenvalues
of at least 1.00 for each factor. In each solution, there were two distinct
factors and at least one smaller factor that differed considerably. Hand
rotation of the four-factor varimax solution produced three clear factors with
eigenvalues greater than 2.25. This four-factor solution accounted for 50.42
percent of the variance; one of the factors had only two subjects with
significant loadings (above .400). This small factor is not reported in these
results.
Because a factor analysis of the Q sorts yields groups of like individuals who
share attitudes, values and beliefs, it is appropriate to think of each group or
type as an individual and helpful for the purposes of understanding and clarity
to give each type a name. The three types that emerged in this study are the
Critical Skeptic, the Change Agent and the Resigned Pragmatist.
Fifty-seven respondents had significant loadings on one of these three factors.
Twenty-five managers factored on the Critical Skeptic type, accounting for 21.3
percent of the variance; 25 managers are Change Agents, accounting for 17.6
percent of the variance; and 7 managers are Resigned Pragmatists, reflecting 6.6
percent of the variance. Seven sorts loaded significantly on more than one
factor or did not load significantly on any factor.
Of the 64 managers who returned completed sorts:
--25 were women and 39 were men;
--58 were white, 2 Asian-American, 2 Hispanic, 1 African-American, 1 other;
--44.5 was the average age;
--22 years was the average newspaper experience;
The Critical Skeptic. The 25 newsroom managers in this type believe the changes
in newspapering are leading the industry toward a more market-driven emphasis,
usually at the expense of traditional journalism values. In general, these
managers are not happy about the direction of change, failing to see how it has
improved the newspaper product or attracted more readers. The Critical Skeptic
is quite critical of how management has led change, and sees a connection
between deteriorating morale among staff and the changing goals of the industry.
The Critical Skeptic would like to preserve the wall of separation between the
news side and business side of the newspaper. However, the Critical Skeptic sees
this wall crumbling and is skeptical about the impact of changing values on
newspapers' ability to continue to practice what has traditionally been defined
as quality journalism.
The Critical Skeptic's shows strong agreement with several statements that
relate to profit motive and reduced resources for journalism. The statement with
which the Critical Skeptic agrees most strongly is: "There is more emphasis on
maintaining or increasing the paper's profits than there used to be" (z = 1.84).
For some managers, the drive for profit has shifted the decision-making power
from those people who manage the organization to those who invest in it. A
Critical Skeptic from a large paper explains:
In a career of 27 years, never have I seen the news operation --
staffing, news hole, pay -- so governed by
the bottom line. A good financial result one year has
to be bettered the next, all so investors stay happy
with the stock price. Indirectly, then, it is the need
to appease the investors that decides what a paper can
and cannot do. Extravagant promises are made, and
extravagant financial goals are set that require budget cutting even after a
year of record profits. Enough!
The Critical Skeptic believes the drive for profit has replaced the desire to
be recognized for excellent journalism. This type agrees: "Most newspaper
companies would trade Pulitzer Prizes for consistently high profits" (z = .87).
A Critical Skeptic at a large paper writes, "High profits mean much more to most
papers than Pulitzers" (respondent's emphasis). It is not surprising that the
Critical Skeptic disagrees with the statement: "Management places more emphasis
on non-profit goals -- product quality, organizational efficiency, use of latest
technology, autonomy and creativity -- than profit goals" (z = -1.33). And the
Critical Skeptic disagrees even more strongly that changes at his newspaper have
led to more resources for journalism (z = -1.49).
A manager from a mid-sized paper writes:
Increasing emphasis on profitability has cut into the finances available
for newsroom resources -- from cut-
backs in newshole to staffing restrictions. Increasingly,
the newsroom staff is being asked to do more with no additional -- and
sometimes less -- resources. Staff is
still expected to generate quality journalism -- in fact, even higher quality
than previously -- with no additional
or new incentives. Change is initiated, but often at a
cost to staffers who must adjust hours and static resources.
The Critical Skeptic finds fault with how newsroom managers have led the
change process. The statement with the second-highest z-score among this factor
is: "Publishers and editors who are advocating a new direction for news and have
found resistance have responded by saying in effect ... 'The train is leaving,
you can get on or get off'" (z = 1.63). This type accepts that staff resistance
is rational, agreeing that industry leaders have embraced change because "they
have invested so much time, money and ego in them that it has become difficult
to admit their lack of success" (z = 1.20). This type also sees how out-of-touch
management is perceived by staff, agreeing that top news executives live in
worlds closely linked to research on market and business strategies but far from
the experiences of their employees (z = 1.36). One laments the role of the
modern editor:
As the information world expands exponentially, the leaders of the
'traditional' industry retreat to each
other's company and look to statistics and marketing
gurus for the answers instead of getting out and talking
to people in their communities -- including their staffers.
Management's failure to lead change is tied to a lack of planning, effective
communication, and staff participation in the change process. This type
disagrees strongly that management has done a good job preparing newsroom
employees for changes (z = -1.50). The Critical Skeptic disagrees that
management has sought opinions from employees about how to improve the newspaper
and newsroom efficiency (z = -.91). A Critical Skeptic writes:
When initiating change, editors and publishers gen-
erally fail to enlist staff participation -- which would,
in turn, work to earn their support for the change.
Instead, change initiatives are 'mandated' and staff questions and
suggestions for change often are seen as
coming from 'malcontents.' The message is: change will
happen, here's how, and if you don't like it, leave.
A deterioration of trust with the staff contributes to poor morale, which was
already low. In a general reference to trust, one writes, "Newsroom staff have
little to trust today -- everything from cutting stories to fit design or space,
managers who want to please their managers, limited staffing, lack of training,
blurring of lines, and the list goes on and on." It is no surprise that the
Critical Skeptic disagrees strongly with the statement: "Morale in our newsroom
is getting better" (z = -1.24).
The Critical Skeptic embraces many of the traditional values of journalism.
This type agrees strongly that the press should continually ask itself what it
can do to improve the democratic process (z = 1.61). The Critical Skeptic's also
believes newspapers should retain the agenda setter role, rejecting that
newspapers' content should driven by public demand. The statement that he
disagrees with most is: "If the public does not demand a diversity of ideas and
opinions, then newspapers should not be expected to provide diverse views" (z =
-1.53).
This type believes news, as currently defined, is a profitable business. The
importance of preserving the "wall of separation" between the news side and
business side is shown in the Critical Skeptic's disagreement that directors of
advertising, circulation and marketing should participate in news planning
meetings (z = -1.01). A Critical Skeptic at a large paper writes:
The 'wall' must be maintained as much as possible.
Because of their financial interests, these people
(directors of advertising, circulation and marketing)
cannot be said to represent typical readers. Nor are they journalists.
Neither fish nor fowl, what relevance --
other than financial -- do they serve in the editorial process? None.
Perhaps most telling is this type's belief that the widespread changes are
simply not improving newspaper quality. The Critical Skeptic shows strong
disagreement that changes in the industry have made newspapers more "thoughtful,
substantiative and provocative" (z = -1.09). He sees many of the changes as
"dumbing down" the news, agreeing that content includes more gossip, trivia and
non-news features, even in the nation's more respected papers (z = .82). A
Critical Skeptic at a large paper writes, "We all lowered our standards on
gossip, trivia and non-news features, regrettably." This increased focus on
non-news comes at the expense of investigative journalism, as this type
disagrees that: "This newspaper does more investigative reporting than it used
to" (z = -1.10). A Critical Skeptic comments:
I see little indication that the changes rocking the industry have
actually improved the journalism. There
are some standouts in this regard, but by and large the changes have -- or
appear to have -- been at the expense
of traditional investigative journalism.
Overall, for all the efforts and changes aimed at making newspapers more
attractive and marketable, the Critical Skeptic doesn't see much -- if any --
progress. The Critical Skeptic agrees strongly with the statement: "There is
little evidence that common changes in news operations (i.e., redefining of
news, newsroom restructuring, new technology) are attracting more readers and
advertisers" (z = 1.53). Several managers in this type comment the new emphases
are not utilizing existing newsroom assets. "We're seen as less credible
everyday, but we have a deep reserve of expertise and independence to draw on."
However, the Critical Skeptic realizes -- and laments -- that the value of an
editor is no longer determined by news expertise.
There are 14 male and 11 female managers in this type. Three of the five
minorities in the sample (the only African-American, an Asian-American and an
Hispanic) are Critical Skeptics. This type has an average age of 46 and 22.7
years experience in the newspaper industry. Managers from 14 of the 18
newspapers studied are in this type. Four are from small papers (less than
50,000 circulation); 16 are from mid-size papers (50,000 to 250,000; actual
range 71,000 to 156,000); and five are from large papers (more than 250,000).
Papers not represented in this type are: The (DeKalb, Ill.) Daily Chronicle,
Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, San Jose Mercury News, and (Minneapolis)
Star-Tribune.
The Change Agent. Although change has been a painful process for many people in
the newspaper business, the 25 managers and editors in this type have accepted
the responsibility for setting a new direction for the industry. The Change
Agent sees a clear connection between an increased emphasis on marketing,
changes in news values and newsroom organization, and improved newspapers. This
type is optimistic about the direction changes are taking the newspaper
industry, thinking newspapers are more concerned with readers' interests and
better positioned as a medium vital to the health of democracy. The Change Agent
accepts an increased emphasis on profits, but sees the need for a greater
marketing intelligence in newsrooms. This type believes journalism and marketing
can be complementary, and is seeking ways to improve newspapers' journalistic
mission and marketing needs.
The Change Agent thinks that newspapers must become more aggressive in reaching
out to readers, and key to that process is reorganizing newsrooms and
reorienting news values. The statement that the Change Agent agrees with most is
newspapers are restructuring their internal organizations to better serve their
customers' goals (z = 1.81). This type believes restructuring is good for
journalism and marketing. A Change Agent writes:
Newspapers for too long have shoved down their readers' throats what they
consider important. Yet, journalists
are notoriously insular and far too often fail to reflect their community.
Restructuring how we do business by
being more customer friendly is common sense in every
other business in America. Customer service includes everything from a
reporter trying to help solve a circu- lation problem to investigating fraud
and abuse.
The Change Agent agrees strongly with the idea that transforming newsrooms from
hierarchical structures into working teams has improved newspaper quality (z =
1.40). And he agrees strongly that changes in the industry have made newspapers
more thoughtful and provocative (z = 1.23). A Change Agent writes, "Newspapers
are improving. There's much more thinking about the quality, the reader, etc."
Another Change Agent is more enthusiastic about the impact and direction of
change. "I think the quality of American journalism is the best it's ever been."
The Change Agent's optimism comes at a time of increased pressure on managers
to return higher profits. The Change Agent agrees with the statement: "There is
more emphasis on maintaining or increasing the paper's profits than there used
to be" (z = 1.07). This pressure carries over into hiring decisions, as the
Change Agent also agrees that adding staff requires editors to show how new
hires can help the paper attract new readers and advertisers (z = .85). One
writes, "When adding more staff, just wanting is not enough anymore. We must
show cause and effect for people and equipment, and how can the resources grow
the readership and help the company and newsroom goals."
Despite the increasing profit motive, the Change Agent is able to differentiate
marketing from profits. This type agrees that newsroom cultures require a
greater marketing intelligence (z = 1.06). Managers in this type see a
connection between marketing and reaching out to readers. One writes,
"Newspapers don't understand enough about their readers. They just think they
do. Newspapers need to better communicate what they offer and not just assume
people must read us" (respondent's emphasis).
The Change Agent defines change in different terms than breaking down of the
traditional "wall" of separation between the news and business sides, and sees
benefits from working with non-news departments. A Change Agent at a mid-size
paper writes:
I don't believe newspapers anywhere have eliminated
the divisions between news and business departments.
What they have done is recognize that editorial depart-
ments must understand the business side of the operation
and quit acting like there is a blank cheque [sic] for
them to play with. Newspapers that get all departments working together and
understanding each other are
stronger, not weaker. Working together does not translate into
self-censorship.
For the Change Agent the "wall" has become an open door, but the departments
still operate out of separate rooms. Working together does not mean giving up
control of the editorial effort. This type disagrees quite strongly that the
decisive power in newspaper organizations is exercised by capital investors more
than newsroom managers (z = -1.06). And the Change Agent disagrees slightly more
strongly that newspaper managers and executive editors are retained or fired
increasingly on the basis of profit performance (z = -1.11). Profit is
admittedly important, but not the primary guiding light. Managers in this type
believe that being interested in investors' concerns is a part of the job of
modern newsroom executives. One writes:
Publishers and editors now have an obligation to run
the newspaper/editorial department in a business-like
manner responsible to shareholders as well as readers. Publishers must work
closely with their corporate
masters; and editors who feel they can do with little or
no regard for the business side of the operation or
other departments are living in the past. That sort of attitude is generally
not tolerated any longer and in
many ways contributed to the decline in circulation and readership that has
plagued most newspapers.
Synthesis is an important concept for the Change Agent, and this trait applies
to news values. The Change Agent believes the media have an important socially
responsible role, especially in democracy and providing a diversity of ideas.
The Change Agent agrees strongly with the idea that press should continually ask
itself what it can do to improve the democratic process (z = 1.64). One shows
the extent some editors are willing to use their newspapers to improve
democracy, "I think employing any means to increase an informed citizenry is
paramount to our survival. We need to concentrate on getting readers/the public
to care about participation in the democracy." Part of nurturing democracy is
presenting a diversity of views. The statement with which this type disagreed
most strongly is: "If the public does not demand a diversity of idea or
opinions, then newspapers should not be expected to provide diverse views" (z =
-2.16).
The Change Agent sees independence as a traditional value worth preserving, for
without independence, credibility is diminished, and profits margins shrink. A
Change Agent at a large paper writes, "Both journalism independence and
profitability are required for newspaper survival. Without profitability we
would fold. Without independence, we would be a tabloid."
The Change Agent's optimism about newspaper industry reflects the type's belief
that management has done an admirable job leading an often difficult change
process. The Change Agent agrees that management has sought opinions from staff
about how to improve the newspaper and newsroom efficiency before enacting
changes (z = 1.18). In accordance with theory, the Change Agent also thinks the
newsroom reorganization is unfolding without bloating the editorial ranks,
disagreeing strongly that restructuring requires more editors to evaluate staff
performance within the new organizational goals (z = -1.38). This type views
change as an opportunity to build a bond between management and staff, which is
having a positive effect on morale. The Change Agent agrees that the news staff
"trusts the integrity of their newsroom managers not to compromise the editorial
effort" (z = .82). He also agrees that "morale in our newsroom appears to be
getting better" (z = .84). Several managers in this type comment the period of
low morale that followed layoffs, belt-tightening and restructuring in the
early-to-mid '90s has bottomed out. A Change Agent writes, "Morale is getting
better. With the influx of new people and new attitudes, morale is going up."
In sum, the Change Agent looks at change as a necessity that presents an
opportunity for improving newspapers while preserving tradition. The pressure
for profits may be increasing, but this pressure can be addressed by more
reader-driven content, restructured newsrooms and traditional quality
journalism. A Change Agent at a mid-size paper sums up the general optimism:
Change has been long overdue in the newspaper indus-
try. We are now talking of news of importance and inter-
est to our readers, rather than delivering what we
thought was important. Change also will, in the long
run, encourage bright minds to remain in journalism.
Seventeen males are in this type and eight females. Two of the five minorities
in the sample (an Asian-American and an Hispanic) are in this type. The Change
Agent has an average age of 45 and 21.8 years of newspaper experience. Managers
in this are from 13 of the 18 newspapers: four coming from small papers; 10 from
mid-size papers; and 11 from large papers. The papers not represented on this
type are: The (Columbia, Mo.) Missourian, The (Missoula, Mont.) Missoulian, The
Wichita (Kan.) Eagle, The Kansas City Star, and (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune.
The Resigned Pragmatist. The seven managers in this type perceive themselves as
stuck between their journalism conscience and the market-driven changes sweeping
the industry. The Resigned Pragmatist recognizes that profit has become the
driving force in newspapering, and reluctantly accepts this while trying to
preserve traditional editorial integrity. Although expected to lead and manage
change, this type wants to separate himself from the market-driven goals of top
executives and corporate managers. He sees corporate management and newsroom
editors in dichotomous terms. Executives claim they want to improve journalism,
but their mandates and change initiatives belie these claims; meanwhile,
newsroom managers find themselves in the unenviable position of enacting changes
that they -- in the worst scenario -- see as a threat to journalism, and -- in
the best scenario -- are ambivalent toward. This type would rather preserve the
"wall" of separation between the news and business sides of the newspaper.
Although the Resigned Pragmatist believes change has created more communication
between management and staff, he does not think that change is improving the
daily newspaper or the newsroom climate.
The Resigned Pragmatist sees profit as the industry's guiding light, even if
the profit motive cuts into journalistic quality. This type showed strongest
that there is more emphasis on maintaining or increasing the paper's profits
than there used to be (z = 1.59). The strength of the profit-motive is also seen
with the strong agreement with the statement: "Most newspaper companies are
primarily concerned with the development of the information in its most
profitable form. Anything else is a betrayal to stockholders" (z = 1.43). One
shows torn allegiance, "While I have much affection for newspapers and
confidence in them, I agree that they think of themselves as information
companies that must find a profitable future."
Newspapers must be profitable, but expected profit margins and the means used
to squeeze them out are unrealistic, this type believes. One Resigned Pragmatist
writes, "Profit is No. 1 in this business. News always comes second."
The Resigned Pragmatist believes that editors' most important job is managing
the news and the personnel that are involved with reporting and producing the
newspaper. He agrees that the role models for today's newspaper managers are
those editors and publishers who in the past told the truth when it was not
popular or profitable to do so (z = 1.25). The Resigned Pragmatist's separation
from top management is shown by agreement that "top executives of media
organizations live in worlds closely linked to research on market trends and
business strategies but from the experiences of their employees" (z = 1.24). An
editor writes, "Publishers, etc., have not an idea what the daily tasks of the
newsroom are. They may bite off more than the paper can chew in terms of staff,
equipment, etc., just to earn more money."
This type agrees that management has sought opinions from employees about how
to improve the newspaper and newsroom efficiency before making changes (z =
.74). And the Resigned Pragmatist thinks of restructuring as more than just a
top-down management exercise, disagreeing with the statement that restructuring
requires more editors to assess the staff's performance (z = -.83). One writes,
"This newsroom placed high value on inclusiveness and training in the change
process, even if we put out bad papers for a time."
However, the Resigned Pragmatist also sees the dark side of managerial efforts,
strong agreement with the statements: "Some industry leaders have embraced
formulas of change because they have invested so much time, money and ego in
them that it has become difficult to admit their lack of success" (z = 1.08);
and "Publishers and editors who are advocating a new direction for news and have
found resistance have responded by saying in effect ... 'The train is leaving,
you can get on or get off'" (z = .99). One editor notes that management's
unwillingness to work through employee resistance has been the most
disappointing part of the change process. "Some staffers who were good employees
were driven to leave by being treated poorly. They deserved better."
The issue that best defines the Resigned Pragmatist is the insistence on
maintaining the "wall" of separation between the news and business sides of the
newspaper. The two statements with which the Resigned Pragmatist disagrees most
involve the creation of cross-departmental teams. He disagrees most strongly
that editors should work with marketing directors to devise strategies to bring
new advertisers to newspapers (z = -2.10). He also disagrees with the other side
of the coin, that directors of advertising, marketing and circulation should
participate in news planning and budget meetings (z = -1.83). A Resigned
Pragmatist from a small paper left no room for doubt, writing, "Editors should
not have to concern themselves with seeking advertisers." This type also
disagrees that newspapers need a culture that requires greater marketing
intelligence (z = -.64). A Resigned Pragmatist at a large paper writes, "We
already have too much 'marketing intelligence' in the newsroom. It is distorting
our mission of the journalistic process by placing high values on products
rather than our main one -- the newspaper."
Much of this type's resignation comes from an awareness that journalistic
independence is being lost in the mandates of change. The statement with the
second highest z-score is "The chance for an independent-minded publisher or
editor to run his or her own newsroom is dying fast" (z = 1.43). A Resigned
Pragmatist writes:
The deepest, most important part of the journalistic process should be
truthfully conveying information and letting people know what's going on in
their society
without influence from anything. It takes a tough hide
and strong soul to make that happen" (respondent's emphasis).
Maintaining independence in the era of cross-departmental teams is difficult.
One writes, "Getting directors of advertising, circulation and marketing
involved in news budgeting and planning compromises all semblance of
independence."
Although trying to keep an open mind, the Resigned Pragmatist agrees strongly
that there is little evidence that common changes in news operations (i.e.,
redefining of news, newsroom restructuring, new technology) are attracting more
readers and advertisers (z = 1.24). As noted, this type thinks the dialogue
between management and staff precipitated by change initiatives is good, but the
Resigned Pragmatist's ability to find something good in change is usually
negated by the ability to find a shortfall. One Resigned Pragmatist illustrated
this point well, writing:
No single change is complete. So, no single change
can be judged a success; neither can it be judged a
failure. There is more significant reporting going on
in a number of areas, but not enough in any area, and
not enough in enough areas. There is still a hampering
lack of resources in all areas. There has been some
success hiring, but a failure to find enough good people locally. The has
been some success establishing higher standards, but a failure to have those
standards met in
all areas. There has been some success in organizing and establishing
priorities for coverage, but a failure to
implement a large enough portion of the high-priority plans.
This factor includes four men and three women, all of whom are white. The
Resigned Pragmatist has an average age of 43 and 21 years newspaper experience.
One Resigned Pragmatist is from a small paper; three are from mid-size papers;
and three are from large papers. The seven newspapers represented in this type
are: The (DeKalb, Ill.) Daily Chronicle, The Honolulu Advertiser, The (Colorado
Springs, Colo.) Gazette, The (Tacoma, Wash.) News Tribune, The Kansas City Star,
The (Portland) Oregonian, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Discussion
The editors in this sample are on the vanguard of newspaper change and have
placed themselves in pivotal and influential positions within the industry. Yet,
two of the three types that emerged in this study are not confident about the
direction in which they are leading the industry. They are not satisfied with
their new roles that include more emphasis on marketing, and they see this
growing emphasis as a threat to journalism and traditional benchmarks of
newspaper quality. Organizational theory suggests that change initiatives
require strong and committed leaders (Kanter, 1983; Kets De Vries, 1993), and
although this Q study cannot measure the "strength" of leadership, the evidence
in the data reveals that the Critical Skeptic and Resigned Pragmatist are not
"committed" to the efforts they are being asked to lead. The reasons for a lack
of commitment differ somewhat for the two types. The Critical Skeptic questions
the wisdom of change on nearly every level: its market- and profit-driven
nature, the negative effect on journalism, his peers' inability to lead and
manage it, and the negative effect it has had on morale and the newsroom
culture. The Resigned Pragmatist distinguishes the good and bad aspects of
change, but sees problems on the horizon. Work teams have improved newspaper
quality and management and staff are doing a better job talking to one another,
but destroying the wall between news and business compromises journalistic
values.
The Change Agent is the most optimistic about the direction the industry is
headed. This type sees newspapers as able to integrate journalism and marketing
and believes these aspects must be developed concurrently within the overall
mission of change. The Change Agent is the only type that believes
decision-making power is held more by newsroom managers than investors, and that
executive editors are evaluated on the basis of journalism more than financial
performance. This confidence that newsroom managers have the support of
management and the institutional power to concentrate on journalism helps
explain why this type does not feel threatened by an increased emphasis on
marketing.
Attempting to assess the direction the industry is heading is a complex issue.
The managers in this sample agree that newspapers are becoming more
profit-driven and market-oriented. But the results of this Q study indicate that
managers are also trying to preserve the traditional journalism values that have
guided them throughout their careers. They share ideas on the media's role in
democracy, and they see news as something more than information that has an
audience. They all disagree that the desires of the audience and interests of
the public are the same. And they see circulation as having value that
transcends the amount an advertiser is willing to pay to reach it. But within
these traditional journalistic outlooks, they see financial realities, agreeing
that adding staff is contingent on showing how the new employees can help the
paper reach new readers and advertisers.
Managers from the small papers are represented proportionately on each type
(four Critical Skeptics, four Change Agents and one Resigned Pragmatist);
however, the distribution by type from the mid-size and large papers does not
run in proportion to the sample.
__________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1: Type by Circulation Size
Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
small 4 4 1
mid-size 16 10 3
large 5 11 3
total 25 25 7
__________________________________________________________________
Although this Q sort cannot claim to be generalizable, the comparatively high
number of editors from mid-size papers that are Critical Skeptics may suggest
that change has been more difficult at mid-size papers. Certainly, there are
more unhappy managers who are critical of change from the mid-size papers in
this study, while there are more Change Agents from large papers. Taken
together, this distribution leads to interesting analysis. It is possible that
change is more difficult at mid-size papers for several reasons:
--Mid-size managers who are expected to lead change
already had broader jobs descriptions and more responsi- bilities than
large-paper editors. This follows theory
that as organizations grow they become more specialized.
At mid-size papers, managers are expected to "wear more hats." Instead of
becoming something for the manager to
focus on, managing change became another job in an
already very tight schedule.
--Change initiatives were given more resources at larger papers. Change
requires time-consuming meetings and directives, new investments and
expenditures, training,
and follow-up assessment. Larger organizations may have
a better capability to put more resources toward change
and still get the newspaper out than mid-size organizations.
--In a similar vein, there may be inadequate resources at mid-size papers for
the scope of change undertaken. In
the wake of downsizing and cost-cutting in the early
1990s, editors at papers in this sample have complained
about a lack of resources. As newspapers seek new ways to attract readers and
restructure their approaches to news coverage, journalists are asked to "do
more with less."
On the other hand, there is a disproportionate number of Change Agents from
large papers. One can speculate that change has come more easily to managers at
these papers because these larger papers have made change a higher priority and
given it more focus and resources. This appears to be the case at The Los
Angeles Times, The Oregonian, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and San Jose Mercury News.
Another possible scenario is that editors at the larger papers in this study
envision themselves as leaders in the industry, and indeed they are. The
industry's changing environment and mandate for change, combined with these
editors' influential positions, puts many of the large paper editors in this
sample in a position where they are expected to act, and they become responsible
for crafting the industry's response to chaotic times. As change is ongoing and
still being experimented with and implemented, it should come as no surprise
that these editors are generally optimistic about the initiatives they have
wrought. However, if this is indeed the case, the data indicate that editors at
mid-size and smaller newspapers are struggling to embrace and enact the changes
their influential peers in the "prestige press" believe the industry must adopt
to survive in the information age.
References
Albers, R. (1995, April). New Age Newsrooms: Is Reorganization the Cutting Edge
or a Passing Fad? Presstime, 32-35.
American Society of Newspaper Editors. (1997). ASNE Change: Annual Report of
the ASNE Change Committee.
Bagdikian, B. (1992). The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bedal, S. (1995, Nov./Dec.). Building a Better Newspaper. The Editor, 13-15.
Coyle, J. (1998, July, August). Now, the Editor as Marketer. Columbia
Journalism Review, 37-41.
Davis, N.M. (1996, February). Protecting the Franchise: A Rash of Buyouts
Renews Debate on Newsroom Staff Size. Presstime, 27- 30.
Doctor, K. (1995). The Why and How Behind Newsroom Changes in St. Paul. Change
Communique: A Quarterly Newsletter for Knight-Ridder Newsroom Change Agents,
7.
Finucane, P. (1996, Spring). A Death in the Family. Nieman Reports, 21-22.
Johnson, S. (1993, March). Newsroom Circles. Quill, 28-30.
Jones, A. (1996, Spring). Feasting on the Seed Corn. Nieman Reports, 5-8.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993). Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the
Psychology of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage
Publications.
McGuire, T. (1994, Oct.). Sharing the excitement of newspaper change. ASNE
Bulletin, 5.
McManus, J. (1994). Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware. Thousand
Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.
Meyer, P. (1995, December). Learning to Love Lower Profits. American
Journalism Review, 40-44.
Morton, J. (1996, Spring). How Big Should Profits Be? Two Times the Fortune
500 Average? Nieman Reports, 9-10.
Neuwirth, R. (1998, Jan. 3). How do you top this? Editor & Publisher, 14-18,
52.
Profits Take Off. (1997, March 8). Editor & Publisher, 13-18, 56-57.
Rosenstiel, T. (1997, Oct. 20). Investing in Integrity Pays. The New York
Times, A19.
Shepard, A. (1997, Dec.). Blowing Up the Wall. American Journalism Review,
18-27
Shepard, A. (1998, May). The Change Agents. American Journalism Review,
43-49.
Squires, J. (1993). Read All About It: The Corporate Takeover of America's
Newspapers. New York: Times Books.
Staff Reductions at Newspapers in 1994 and 1995. (1996, Spring). Nieman
Reports, 17-20.
Stein, M.L. (1997, July 19). Good Journalism and the Bottom Line, Editor &
Publisher, 10-13.
Stepp, C.S. (1995, April). Reinventing the Newsroom. American Journalism
Review, 29-33.
Stepp, C. S. (1995, October). The Thrill Is Gone. American Journalism Review,
15-19.
Underwood, D. (1993). When MBAs Rule the Newsroom. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Underwood, D. (1998, Jan./Feb.). It's not just in L.A. Columbia Journalism
Review, 24-26.
Woo, W. (1998, Jan./Feb.). Why Willes Is Wrong. Columbia Journalism Review,
27.
Appendix 1: Z-scores by type
Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
1) The newsroom staff is open-minded toward - .94 .12 .38
change.
2) Restructuring in the newsroom seems to require .60 -1.38 -.83
more editors who send out memos about other
staffers' performances within the new goals
of the restructuring.
3) Changes in the newspaper industry have -1.09 1.23 -.00
generally made newspapers more
thoughtful, substantiative and provocative.
4) Newspaper management places more emphasis on -1.33 -.06 -.99
non-profit goals (i.e., product quality, organi-
zational efficiency, the latest technology, worker
autonomy and creative innovation) than profit goals.
5) Newspapers should set up ethics committees .70 .59 .35
to draft guidelines that put limits on editorial
staff participation in promotional events.
6) Directors of advertising, circulation and -1.01 -.86 -1.83
marketing should participate in news planning
and budget meetings.
7) Transforming newsrooms from hierarchal -1.00 1.40 .24
structures into work teams has improved
product quality.
8) The role models for today's top newspaper -.61 .81 1.25
managers are those editors and publishers who
in the past had told the truth when it was not
popular nor profitable to do so.
9) In breaking down the separation between the -.00 -1.07 -.27
newsroom and the business office, the business
side of newspapering has come to increasingly
dominate the news side.
10) Most newspaper companies would trade .87 -.87 -1.06
Pulitzer Prizes for consistently high profits.
11) In the final analysis, most newspaper .47 -.82 1.43
companies are primarily concerned with the
development of the information business in its
most profitable form. Anything else is a
betrayal of their stockholders.
12) Journalistic independence has helped .69 .94 .69
establish the newspaper industry as a
credible and distinct institution.
Appendix 1: Z-scores by type
Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
13) The press should continually ask itself what 1.61 1.64 .70
it can do to improve the American democratic
process.
14) News, defined as the reporting of inform- -.82 -1.96 -1.77
ation journalists believe is relevant to their
readers, is not a profitable business.
15) Top executives of media corporations live 1.36 .11 1.24
in worlds closely linked to research reports on
market trends and business strategies but very
far from the deeper currents of experience of
their employees.
16) Management has done a good job preparing -1.50 .44 .62
newsroom employees for changes that have taken
place.
17) Journalists at dailies that have elimin- .21 -.60 .56
ated the divisions between the news and
business departments engage in self-
censorship when they write about issues
of importance to advertisers.
18) The decisive power in modern newspaper .40 -1.06 .40
organizations is exercised by capital
investors more than newsroom managers.
19) Most of the changes undertaken by this news- -1.49 .43 .19
paper have resulted in more resources -- human,
technical and/or financial support -- for
practicing journalism.
20) Circulation is a means to an end. It -.64 -.82 -1.00
becomes an asset only when it is sold to an
advertiser.
21) Members of the news staff trust the -.82 .82 -.18
integrity of their newsroom managers not
to compromise the editorial effort.
22) Newspapers are restructuring their .35 1.81 -.36
internal organizations to better serve
their customers' goals.
23) Recent changes in newspaper design stress .86 -.50 -.18
style over substance to the point that the
look and intrinsic feel of the page count more
to the editors than the depth of the news.
Appendix 1: Z-scores by type
Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
24) For continued success, the newspaper .55 1.06 -.64
industry needs a culture that requires
greater newsroom marketing intelligence.
25) Editors seeking to add staff are .57 .85 .64
expected to show how the new staffers will
assist the newspaper to reach new readers
and advertisers it is trying to attract.
26) Morale in our newsroom appears to be -1.24 .84 -.09
getting better.
27) Even in some of the nation's most .82 .72 .26
respected newsrooms, more gossip, trivia and
non-news features are used to fill the pages.
28) Because the newspaper industry is -.88 -1.91 -1.25
increasingly big business, one cannot
reasonably expect newspapers to be
critical of big business.
29) The desires of the audience and inter- -.83 -.39 -1.74
ests of the public are essentially the same.
30) There is little evidence that common 1.53 -.26 1.24
changes in news operations (i.e., rede-
fining of news, newsroom restructuring,
and use of emerging technologies) are
attracting more readers and advertisers.
31) If the public does not demand a divers- -1.53 -2.16 -1.72
ity of ideas and opinions, then newspapers
should not be expected to provide diverse views.
32) Increasingly, newspaper managers and exec- .61 -1.11 .55
utive editors are retained or fired on the basis
of profit performance more than journalistic
performance.
33) The chance for an independent-minded .76 -.55 1.43
publisher or editor to run his or her own
newsroom is dying fast.
34) Management has sought opinions from -.91 1.18 .74
employees about how to improve the newspaper
and newsroom efficiency before enacting
changes that affect the newsroom.
35) There is more emphasis on maintaining or 1.84 1.07 1.59
increasing the paper's profits than there used
to be.
Appendix 1: Z-scores by type
Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
36) Some industry leaders have embraced the 1.20 -.53 1.08
formulas of change because they have invested
so much time, money and ego in them that it has
become difficult to recognize or admit the lack
of their success.
37) Newspaper companies should expect profit -1.16 -.88 -1.11
margins to continue at levels ranging from two
to three times higher than Fortune 500 companies.
38) This newspaper does more investigative -1.10 .57 .99
reporting than it used to.
39) Publishers and editors who are advocating a 1.63 .52 .91
new direction for news and have found resistance
from their staff have responded by saying in
effect ... "The train is leaving the station,
you can get on or get off."
40) Editors should work with advertising, -.07 .32 -2.10
marketing and circulation managers to devise
strategies for bringing new advertisers to
newspapers.
41) Newspapers' desire to attract upscale con- .74 -.40 -.35
sumers in order to attract similar advertisers
leads to news content that is less and less
relevant to blue-collar citizens.
42) Competing newspapers in most markets .62 .73 .00
struggle to maintain a sufficient economic
base.
Appendix 2: Correlation by type
Type Critical Change Resigned
Skeptic Agent Pragmatist
Critical Skeptic 1.000 .127 .466
Change Agent 1.000 .430
Resigned 1.000
Pragmatist
|
