The business model for the newspaper is dead, gone, destroyed, literally exploded.

<

p>Newspapers don’t need to reinvent the wheel. The Globe and NYT have their own problems, ones that I think are mainly attributable to bad management (and, in the Globe’s case, a few hundred too many employees), but it’s not a business model that can’t work without some tweaks. Newspapers all around the Globe are still profitable. There are several examples of newspapers even doing well online. Eventually, it’ll move more toward that direction and less toward print, but that shouldn’t mean less news — just less employees focused on print distribution.

<

p>I don’t think a nonprofit or quasi-nonprofit is necessarily a bad model, I just think it’s a model, with pros and cons, like any other. Sign me up for whatever takes the Globe out of NY’s hands and into our own local hands, be that new ownership or nonprofit status or whatever. But let’s bear in mind that while newspapers are in a tight spot, the reports of the industry’s demise is a tad overstated.  

<

p>If you turn the Globe into a non-profit, you have not only the problems of running a non-profit, but also the problems of transition and legacy. That’s orders of magnitude more complicated than starting with a clean slate.

<

p>For example, if you make the Globe a non-profit, your first order of business will inevitably be scaling the current operation back. If that’s a painful, hopelessly complicated, task at a for-profit, how is a non-profit going to handle it?

<

p>On the other hand, if you start from scratch, your first task will be building and experimenting. Those are far more hopeful activities.  

<

p>- For at least a generation, the driving force of journalism careers has been “get to the publications where the pay is decent and my job is secure.” If a paper as large as the Globe is suddenly a nonprofit, does that dynamic change? Why would someone work for a small paper for $20K, then?

<

p>- I grew up with the Globe, so it defines newspaper to me. But, for about 10 years, they have steadily cut back on newsroom staff, and the effect on the quality has been tangible. They need to make the paper better to have it be worth saving.

<

p>

<

p>I don’t see the gimmee gimmee NPR shtick working out too well for the Globe. It only works for public radio because those fund-raisers go on the radio, where they preempt programming.

<

p>The equivalent for a newspaper would be to follow people around during pledge week and whack them with last week’s “G” magazine until they pay up.

<

p>But, suppose your subscription were membership dues in a nonprofit Boston community organization. Suppose it gives you access to online content and RL events.

<

p>Now suppose your subscription costs more, but you get a Rochdale-style share of, say, 50% of ad revenue. This adds value to advertising in the Globe: advertisers become both good guys (for supporting the community) and defrays the subscription price in a tangible way, so readers have a special interest in ads. (Complete with a monthly column in the business section: Ad Revenues, Subscriber Dividend Up This Month). Now readers can look at those big boring ads and cheer.

<

p>Okay, I admit this probably isn’t enough. Video killed he radio star, and the internet is killing the golden egg. But the nonprofit though is worth thinking and there’s a heck of a lot more to that than NPR fund drives.

<

p>It’s not newsprint which is sinking the Globe.  It’s that (1) demand their product has declined thereby reducing revenues, and (2) they are burdened with crushing legacy costs.

<

p>How’s non-profit going to change any of this?

<

p>The Wall Street Journal looks like it has a viable print-online strategy.  One would think the Globe could emulate their business model although it may be too late.

<

p>In any case, the Globe is NOT indispensable.  It will re-organize is some different form — why not like The Metro? — or become the New England insert for the New York Times.

<

p>Public radio is the business model that works best right now, because the delivery model isn’t broken. It works because people are stuck in their cars. And it works because it really is a business, albeit a non-profit business – no listener contributions, no advertising (uh, “underwriting”), no station. Public radio’s dependence on government funding is so small that it could be eliminated without doing much harm. Unfortunately, an operation like WBUR – among the most admired public stations in the country, and probably the most interesting and vibrant news organization in Boston these days – still has a tiny news staff compared to the Globe.

<

p>Right now, the economy is hurting newspapers more than the Internet is. Even so, revenues for the Times Co.’s three New England properties (the Globe, Boston.com, and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette) fell only from $700m to $524m between 2008 and 2004. I say “only” … I realize that’s a lot. But how can you not be able to put out a good local newspaper/ website with that kind of money?

<

p>The best model: a profit/non-profit hybrid, like the St. Petersburg Times, a for-profit paper owned by a non-profit educational institution, the Poynter Institute. Yes, you’d still have to cut the Globe until it hits the break-even point. But no longer would you have to deal with Wall Street demanding 20 percent profits.

<

p>The Globe could get a lot smaller and still be the leading news organization in Boston for many years to come.

<

p>Companies are born and die every day. Digital Equipment Corporation was a great company, with great employees and managers. Many of us continue to make significant contributions every day — even though DEC is no longer with us.

<

p>Polaroid is a better analog to the Globe. The handwriting was on the wall for both, and both maintained their denial about the implications of that handwriting until it was too late.

<

p>Millennium Pharmaceuticals was a fabulous biotech. Its shell now bears little resemblance to the original. Biotechnology in Massachusetts didn’t die.

<

p>We have lots of papers here. We have many more news and information outlets here.

<

p>The many good, skilled, and wise contributors to the Globe will have ample opportunity to make additional contributions.

<

p>Life goes on, with or without the Boston Globe. The same can be said, by the way, for Chrysler, Ford, GM, and — for that matter — Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch and Lehmann Brothers. Some of us remember Lechmere’s, Jordan Marsh, Gilchrist’s, Zayre’s and Bradlees. Life goes on.

<

p>

<

p>And here’s a quick calculation – if you added 100 reporters to WBUR’s staff, you would start getting into the ballpark of what the Globe offers. Obviously you’d need a major upgrade to the website, too. But figure $100,000 apiece for salary and benefits, and it would cost $10 million.

<

p>In 2006, WBUR’s entire budget was $18.7 million, with 115 employees.