RochesterWriters

Reader Elmer sends this fascinating analysis of the problems at The Daily Advertiser, a Gannett Paper in Lafayette, Louisiana. Layfayette is about half the size of Rochester, and the Advertiser is less than half the size of the D&C: the 200 or so remaining employees put out a paper as small as 16 pages on some days.

Though the Advertiser is paid $240K per year to publish public notices, Gannett laid off the legal clerk who handled those notices. This led to a cancellation of a City-Parish council meeting because the Advertiser failed to publish the meeting notice.

In the first three quarters of 2007, the Advertiser made 33.5% margins on revenue of $23.2 million. That's $7.8 million of profit for Gannett.

In the same period, the Democrat and Chronicle made 28.5% margins on revenue of $62.3 million. That's $17.8 million in profit, according to Gannett Blog.

The Lafayette story contrasts the cutbacks at the Advertiser with a nearby family-owned daily in Arcadia, LA. That paper hasn't cut a single job, and the publisher isn't planning to do so.

With all the hysteria about the death of newspapers, it's important to remember that what's shrinking is profit margins. Newspapers are still very profitable, and 30-40% margins can take quite a hit before a paper starts to lose money. Gannett is cutting to save margins, not to save the company.

The whole Lafayette story is worth a close read. It's the well-researched, lengthy and well-written product of a Lafayette alt-weekly that's only been around since 2003. I haven't read anything as good in City Newspaper, which continues to be an alternative in name, not in content.

Jill Terreri covers the politics for the D&C, and she's pretty good. She might even be One in a Million, as her editor titled his latest post about her trip to DC to cover the inauguration.

Jill's going to accompany a group of Obama supporters, and she'll be posting about the trip on a D&C blog. According to her editor, "she will be sleeping on the bus and will face potential hardships including a potentially taxed cell phone network and lack of portable toilets."

I'm sure it's no fun to sleep on the bus, but Jill is probably used to hardship, because she has to fit her stories into the tiny space alloted by the D&C. Jill , each of which has a few paragraphs about a topic that could support thousands of words.

Gannett has spend millions on RocMoms, RocPets, RocEarth and a dozen other sites, but their flagship brand is still letting the size of the paper edition dictate the length of their best reporters' stories.

The D&C's parent company, Gannett, announced today that employees will be taking a mandatory week off. Coverage is all over the local and national media. Editor and Publisher has the basic facts. Locally, City Newspaper has a piece which pegs the newsroom cost of the most recent layoff at 14 jobs. Last but certainly not least, reader Elmer sends Gannett Blog's take.

While it is nearly lost in a wash of unoriginal squawking, there is one particular line of discussion about the Detroit bailout which I think bears some discussion in the context of the D&C layoffs. It is worth applying from one aging and ailing industry to another. That discussion revolves around two archetypal failed businesses: those that fail for selling an outdated product and those that fail for financial reasons.

If it was announced that a typewriter company was going out of business, you wouldn't be terribly surprised. They make a product which is of not enough importance for not large enough a customer base to remain viable. They could completely change what they do, but apart from that radical option, there is nothing to be done about their inevitable failure.

But more often than not, companies that fail do so not because they're not producing valuable things, but because they're not managing money effectively anymore. For this type of business, there is much that can be done to keep them going. What is required is a bit of restructuring.

So, the question for our discussion is: does the D&C represent a dinosaur outfit for which there is no hope of recovery, or a failed business model for which a bit of restructuring will suffice?

To the extent that the Democrat and Chronicle's primary business is that of selling a physical object, the newspaper, it seems to me that obsolescence is a concern. Recently, a survey was published that showed - for the first time ever - that Internet news had become more popular than it's printed counterpart. And that's while only 65% of American homes have computers in them. It's safe to assume that as more and more people buy computers, this trend will likely continue.

Thus sadly for our manufacturing base here in Rochester, it seems like the business of printing a large-circulation newspaper may have already become a burden too great to sustain. And it's very unlikely that there is a third-party subcontractor that can take over the physical paper production for a few local newspapers and defray costs.

But of course, a newspaper is never about just the paper it's printed on. Or at least, we hope not. There is also the wealth of influence, resources and access that a media company brings to bear on reporting the news. Those of us in the blogging community to not get a chance to speak with any politician any time we want to nor do we have a cadre of researchers to cull through documents looking for missed facts. These are things which only large, well-established companies can bring to bear on a story.

So, these things are of value and have relevance, however much the media landscape may have changed. And so, while part of the business is clearly going to have to go away soon, the rest can be salvaged and should be, for the benefit of our community. In fact, many of us might say that this side of the business has lain dormant for an awfully long time.

The Democrat and Chronicle would do well to pay attention to companies like Gatehouse Media, who are exploring just what a small group of dedicated journalists without all the pomp and circumstance of a big newspaper can do. It would behoove them to see just how small they could possibly make themselves and what they're willing to give up. Because the only other alternative is a long and unpleasant slide into reality.

Getting rid of the endless parade of cruft articles would be a good step towards controlling costs, as well. The armies of the self-published on the Internet understand that if you don't say something credible and relevant, the majority of viewers will quickly find another source.