My prediction all along....

I have worked for a national magazine, an industry weekly, a large newspaper, a business website, a smaller newspaper, and a regional magazine. When people ask me the future of newspapers this is what I tell them: I predict that large newspapers like the New York Times, Boston Globe, etc. will, eventually, be online only. Small community weeklies will thrive in print. Why? People love to see their name in print, and most ordinary people wont make the news outside of their community. Parents love to see their kids names and photographs for honor roll and local sports.

There is an alternative community newspaper in Asbury, New Jersey, who has shunned the web and is thriving in spite of, or because of, it. Here's a blurb from the New York Times story:

Finally, a story about a print organization that has found a way to tame the Web and come up with a digital business approach that could serve as a model. Except that TriCityNews of Monmouth County, N.J., is prospering precisely because it aggressively ignores the Web. Its Web site has a little boilerplate about the product and lists ad rates, but nothing more. (The address is trinews.com, for all the good it will do you.)

“Why would I put anything on the Web?” asked Dan Jacobson, the publisher and owner of the newspaper. “I don’t understand how putting content on the Web would do anything but help destroy our paper. Why should we give our readers any incentive whatsoever to not look at our content along with our advertisements, a large number of which are beautiful and cheap full-page ads?”

What TriCityNews has going for it is the fact that they have no competition. People don't look to this paper for breaking news like they would a national newspaper or website.

I think this is the best news I've heard in months. And it validates my newspaper predictions and makes me feel smart.

Instead of layoffs.....

I was really happy when I read this article in the New York Times about what companies across the country were doing to avoid laying off their employees.

A growing number of employers, hoping to avoid or limit layoffs, are introducing four-day workweeks, unpaid vacations and voluntary or enforced furloughs, along with wage freezes, pension cuts and flexible work schedules. These employers are still cutting labor costs, but hanging onto the labor.

The article talked about how faculty and staff at Brandeis University are opting for a 1% pay cut to save jobs. While 1% of a salary doesn't really make a dent it could save someone else from being unemployed. This is a novel idea! Check out the article and read the comments -- quite interesting!

When I worked at the Portland Press Herald, the big bosses suggested that employees take a week of unpaid vacation to save jobs. They were actually surprised at how many people signed up. If employees believe in the company they work for and have relationships with their coworkers, I believe they are more likely to give a little than go through layoffs.

Is it better to have a job even if you have to suffer a pay cut, no holiday party or year end bonus than to be out of a job completely? I guess it depends on how much you like your job. For me, working for a small company, I'd do a lot to keep my job. As a journalist I feel fortunate to have a secure job in this market.

I think it's worth it for employers to look to other efforts to save money rather than layoffs. It shows employees that they care -- especially if they, too, take a pay cut.