Suddenly daily newspapers are all the same size: toy size, like they’re going for the child market. When did this happen?
Also, I imagine it was a cost cutting measure. But anyone know specifically what costs were cut? Is it really to disguise a decrease in actual content? Was it necessary in order to take advantage of a new electronic printing method? Is there a huge savings in buying rolls of newsprint a couple inches narrower?
Is there, in other words, a transcript somewhere of a meeting that led to this universal lilliputianization of daily papers?
Where are you, that newspapers are getting dramatically smaller? There have been no such changes here in Toronto. The tabloid is still tabloid-sized; the broadsheets are still broadsheet-sized…
In the UK, newspapers are categorised as broadsheet, compact, and tabloid. Over the years, most of the old broadsheets have changed format to compact. There remains but one daily broadsheet (The Daily Telegraph) and two Sunday broadsheets (The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times).
I believe the broadsheet/compact transition took place in order to allow greater freedom for readers using public transport. In other words, compacts are easier to hold while reading.
So yes, in some places anyway, the trend has been for incredible shrinking newspapers.
It’s partly a way to reduce costs. I believe that the New York Times recently cut the width of the paper by 1.5 inches to save money (and even has ads on the front page now).
Well, in the NY tri-state area, the Daily News & NY Post have retained their dimensions for years, but a few months ago Newsday shrunk down a significant percentage in both width & height, and also switched to what seems to be a different type of paper/printing. These are all tabloid-form papers
Throughout most of the 20th century, broadsheet newspapers were about 15 inches wide. In the industry, that’s known as the 60-inch web, because page sizes are measured by the width of the paper on the press - 4 pages wide. Some newspapers overseas, like the Sydney Morning Herald, are still printed at that size, but in the 1980s and 1990s, most U.S. newspapers began to shrink their page widths as a cost-saving measure.
I don’t know why this trend didn’t catch on in Australia or India, but it’s nearly universal in the U.S. By the 1990s, most U.S. broadsheet newspapers were down to the 53-inch or 50-inch web (12.5- to 13.25-inch page widths). A few years ago, most shrunk to the 48-inch web; for example, The Kansas City Star switched from a 53-inch web to the 48-inch web when they got new presses in 2006. The New York Times made a similar switch last year.
Now, as the belts continue to tighten, the 44-inch web (11-inch page width) is the new size. All papers in the Gannett and Lee chains are now at the 44-inch web, and any papers that haven’t shrunk are surely considering it.
Right, but where are the costs cut? In the simple reduction of paper pulp used? Isn’t there a setup cost in the new, narrower machinery? Or is the machinery itself a cost cutter?
In the UK it was around 2003/2004 when a few major broadsheets switched to compact size. The main reason was to make them more convenient to carry and read in general, particularly on public transport. The newspapers claimed that there was no change of content whatsoever and that it wasn’t to do with cost-cutting.
Personally I much prefer the compact format: I read The Times (now a compact) and the Financial Times (still a broadsheet), and the latter is a pain to read unless you have an acre of space around you. On a busy train I usually give up trying to read it, whereas The Times I’d be able to read comfortably.
Interesting. Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that the Toronto Star did a little shrinking a couple of years ago during a redesign. But it’s far from tabloid-sized. I just measured a copy; the unfolded sheet is 23 inches wide, with five columns on each 11.5-inch page.
At most papers, the presses can be reconfigured by the press operators with a little overtime. And yes, the reduction in paper is all that’s saved, but it’s not an insignificant savings. Newsprint is a big part of the cost of a newspaper, and you could be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars a year saved by cutting the cost of newsprint by 10 percent.
Also, most newspapers are combining sections and reducing the number of pages they print as fewer ads are bought. While most metro papers could be guaranteed to have separate A, Local, Business, Sports and Features sections every day a few years ago, many have combined two or three of them into one, or scaled back the days printed for other sections. In the last 2 1/2 years, the KC Star has gone from having a separate local and business section every day (except Monday for biz) to combining both into the A section 6 days a week.
It isn’t just the cost of newsprint, either. When the papers reduced the size of the page, they also reduced from six columns per page to five. That means a 12-page section now only needs to be filled with 10 pages of copy and ads.
This way, the newspaper can still feel fat even though it has less material in it. Fat newspapers feel more substantial and make the readers (and advertisers) feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. Meanwhile, the declining amount of advertising doesn’t look as bad, and with less news space to fill, the paper can get by with a smaller staff.
As far as The Times goes, it’s because fewer and fewer readers have butlers to iron their morning paper, nor large breakfast tables upon which to read it.
I seem to recall that, for a while, The Times published both a tabloid and a broadsheet version each day. Something of a nightmare for the production staff, I imagine.
Edit: ah yes, between November 2003 and October 2004, both editions were produced. The Independent also did both sizes for a while before going tabloid-only.
The Chicago Tribune went from a broadsheet to a tabloid style paper when Sam Zell bought it.
The Chicago Sun-Times was already a tabloid style. I agree with the Tribune’s smaller size, because it’s easier to read on your way to work, on the bus or subway.
The Tribune said when it switched that home delivered papers would still remain broadsheet style.
I forgot to mention this example. Here you can see them side-by-side. I have no idea how long they can sustain this as a business model, but there you go.
The SF Examiner is a vertical “magazine tabloid,” measuring 11.5x13.5.
The SF Chronicle recently shrank to an 11x21 broadsheet.
The Contra Costa Times is a relative giant at 11.5x22 broadsheet.
When the Chron shrank, they made a fair bit of fuss over the new presses and moving from six columns to five columns, and stressed that they were still a broadsheet, as if the paper’s format really has any impact over its content.
I do know that the newer sizes are less effective against the rain. I remember growing up with the Chicago Tribune, and how you could really take shelter underneath it.
The New York Times did this. Within the last year, they reduced the number of sections so that there are only four sections on weekdays, and they can use only one print run.
The available space on a SF Chronicle page is actually 9.5" x 20". The rest is gutter and folio.
Since I work for this company I know a little about it. It was entirely about the cost savings. At the same time we went to a 44" web, we outsourced our newspaper printing to a 3rd party who built brand new presses for the purpose. So at the same time, the Chronicle was able to lay off hundreds (I think) of press and transportation employees, thus saving a huge expense every year. Also the new presses provide better opportunities to scatter color in advertising, without the need to charge the advertiser for the entire page of color (if they were the only ones with color on the page).
So we have:
Lower newsprint cost (and it is significant, although I don’t know the exact figures).
Much lower labor costs (only partially offset by what we pay the 3rd party printer).
More opportunity to sell color, to increase revenue
They may have tried to sell the public on the snazzy new layouts and the convenient size, but in the scheme of things, those were at the very bottom of the list. And if anyone is in doubt, it’s not about making more money, it’s about just making enough to cover costs and stay in business.
Roddy
