| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Main St. Reader-7482
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Aug 5 2012, 10:49 pm EDT Post subject: Cranbury Press |
 |
|
The latest issue of The Cranbury Press is yet another example of the continued and complete disregard of Cranbury in the Press.
"Around Cranbury" is gone! "Retrospectives" are gone!
Little or no news concerning Cranbury is being reported.
The recent discussions with editor Kim and interested readers and former readers seem to have had no results.
It is a shame to see a fixture such as The Cranbury Press slide as it has done and hit the bottom.
May it rest in peace! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anon-818s
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 8:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
| The editor came to Teddy's to hear tge concerns. People spent 3 hours trying to help. What happens he ignored every comment made. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Hank. I can't justify subscribing anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorry-8p94
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 9:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
| anon-818s wrote: | | The editor came to Teddy's to hear tge concerns. People spent 3 hours trying to help. What happens he ignored every comment made. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Hank. I can't justify subscribing anymore. |
I don't know if he ignored every comment, or we ignored everything he said.
He has no full time reporters. He has room for 4 stories a week that encompass three towns. So on average there are 1.3 stories about Cranbury. He basically couldn't spend the $100 dollars a week that around Cranbury and the retrospectives columns cost him. Also, the would open up slots to allow for 6 stories a week, therefore 2 a week on Cranbury.
The retrospective column (which I love) got a reprieve when the Cranbury Country Club agreed to sponsor the column for a month. I take it they did not continue the sponsorship and without the money the column was dropped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-818s
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 10:49 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
| However, people told him that they subscribed in large part due to those two items. They also gave ideas on how to expand readership and that they didn't care about national news. Since then they do national healthcare and a bunch of Princeton stories or PR on the packet staying. Seems they can either try and invest and do what readers want or do the same old thing and die out. If a business model doesn't work you change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Three-Hour Kim-74q0
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 8:21 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
Poster "Sorry" did not hear the same numbers that I did in the three-hour session with editor Kim. I heard him say that the retros cost $45 a week.
I did not hear him quote a $ amount for Around Cranbury.
He explained that he was trading these columns for some local features re: Cranbury, Monroe and Jamesburg. Receently, we don't even get that on the "news" pages. Further, we get the same editorial page stuff from Michelle and a canned editorial. Sometimes, we get a local letter to the editor and sometimes not.
Chalk the demise and near death of The Cranbury Press to poor Packet journalism management practices and a failure to recognize and keep up with the changes in reporting technology |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorry again-8p94
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Aug 6 2012, 9:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
| Three-Hour Kim-74q0 wrote: | Poster "Sorry" did not hear the same numbers that I did in the three-hour session with editor Kim. I heard him say that the retros cost $45 a week.
I did not hear him quote a $ amount for Around Cranbury.
He explained that he was trading these columns for some local features re: Cranbury, Monroe and Jamesburg. Receently, we don't even get that on the "news" pages. Further, we get the same editorial page stuff from Michelle and a canned editorial. Sometimes, we get a local letter to the editor and sometimes not.
Chalk the demise and near death of The Cranbury Press to poor Packet journalism management practices and a failure to recognize and keep up with the changes in reporting technology |
I apologize for rounding 45 to 50, really glad you pointed that out. I do think you are being a bit cavalier. The demise occurs if they keep the status quo. This is a last ditch effort to change the status quo. I agree it is wrong headed, but if they follow your advice they go bankrupt too.
"Failure to keep up with the changes in reporting technology" pardon my french. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT????
I don't know what the answer is, but newspapers, all newspapers, are in a death spiral. Everyone talks about moving them online but as of yet no one has found a model to monetize an online paper that is actually profitable.
Rather than railing at the Cranbury Press, I pity it. Unfortunately, at the meeting while well intentioned, I failed to hear any ideas that would return the paper to profitability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missed it-44n0
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 8 2012, 5:21 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
| I missed the meeting at Teddys. Did anyone suggest doubling the subscription price in order to save the beloved features and support more news content? If so, how was that suggestion received? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Former Adv.-7548
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 9 2012, 11:30 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press |
|
|
Some weeks ago, this email was sent to Jim Kilgore, publisher of the Packet. It may help to understand the Cranbury Press situation.
"Last year, we spent about 4-5 K advertising in the W H Herald and the Press. We attempted to do it again this year, but after about 6-8 attempts, we gave up.
They kept losing our paperwork, forgetting to call us and then would say that we never asked for ad runs. (But we could show emails from them acknowledging receipt of our requests!!)
I think they are simply a mess at this point. No wonder they cannot make money!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
