Paying a billion for the paper doesn't help, nor does the availability of the Net, or some constituencies objecting to the Globe's coverage or focus on certain issues.
The purchase of the New England newspapers was one of the worst moves, at the worst possible time, that Pinch could have made. Just unfathomable. If it wasn't for the unusual structuring of the NYTs stock, which vests the actual control of the paper in a class of stock almost exclusively in the hands of the Sulzburger family, Pinch would have been out on his ass years ago. The family just saw their dividends evaporate, and some are probably uneasy about being in the thrall of some sketchy Mexican gazzillionaire, so even they may finally decide its time for Pinch to retire.
Just heard WBZ give results of a poll: for "which paper would you prefer to have in Boston if Boston only had one", the Globe won out 52-48. They aired 3 sound bites from Globe boosters, 2 from Herald fans (along the lines of "I used to buy the Globe years ago, but..." and "goodbye Globe!")
Yikes. I know these are unscientific polls (self-selecting) but this makes absolutely no sense at all, and is the worst possible news for the Globe.
The Globe has almost twice the weekday circulation of the Herald, and four times the circulation of the Herald on Sunday, but they can only beat the Herald by 4 percentage points? Given the huge disparity in readership, and the fact that older demos and news-freaks, as reflected by WBZ listeners, are the last bastion of newspaper readers, it may be time to turn out the lights on Morrissey Blvd. Whatever happened to the law of large numbers?
The Globe may well keep publishing a print edition but for how long?
Until their losses threaten the viability of the Grey Lady, at which time they'll be jettisoned. The Sulzburgers will sell everything that's worth anything (like the piece of the Sox) and shut down the rest in order to keep the NYT publishing, which is their first, and only, priority. Right now, you could not GIVE the Globe away, since its only potential is as a perpetual money burning machine. Either the Globe survives under the NYT, or it folds
Herald also not exactly out of danger
They will be if the Globe folds. The seemingly irreversible trend is major metros becoming 'one-newspaper towns', but none are becoming 'no-newspaper-towns.' There may not be enough remaining newspaper advertising to support two major dailies, but there is, for the forseeable future, usually enough to support one. One benefit of the Herald being strapped for money for years is that they're used to running very lean, and any increase in advertising revenue is magnified more than it is at the Globe. If the Globe goes under, a lot of their advertising account execs will find a new home in the South End
I've been boycotting buying the Globe since the early 1970s, but I have to say that the Herald (to which I subscribe) is a POS and seems to be getting worse every year. Hopefully, if the Globe folds, the Herald will invest some of the increased advertising revenue, which will come from being the only game in town, into improving the paper.
Wikipedia's entry on the Herald says that in late '82, Rupert Murdoch "closed on the deal after 30 hours of talks with Hearst and newspaper unions -- and five hours after Hearst had sent out notices to newsroom employees telling them they were terminated." And the paper's headline the next day read "You Bet
We're Alive!"
Well, that was back in the day when a lot of normally sane people believed the business model for traditional newspapers still made sense. Not so much today. Unless you fill a unique niche (USA Today) or fill a niche AND can actually get people to pay for on-line content (the WSJ) you're toast on the national level (see CSM) or if you're
the high cost and overly leveraged producer in a two newspaper town.
Regards,
TSB
