Profits up, circulation down for Thomson papers in 80s
This comparison of Thomson papers with comparable newspapers indicates they lost more revenue and circulation during 1980s when high profit goals were set.
Scholars and journalists have expressed concern that a desire for high profits at some newspapers will result in lower newsroom expenditures.1 The concern is that lower budgets will produce lower quality newspapers, and readers eventually will abandon newspapers in favor of alternative sources of news.
This study explores the relationship between profit goals and circulation, using the example of the Thomson newspaper group during the 1980s. In a 1988 speech, the editor and chairman of McClatchy Newspapers identified Thomson as one of three newspaper groups whose emphasis on profits had produced the “worst newspapers in America.”2
Then, in 1993 a new Thomson CEO told Editor & Publisher that during the previous decade the chain’s dailies enjoyed profit margins that consistently “approached 40 percent.” The high profits resulted from a strategy that combined price increases with cost cuts. However, there was a side-effect. Thomson CEO Michael Brown said the emphasis on profits resulted in “cruddy” newspapers, and by 1992 profit margins had decreased to 17 percent.3
How much quality a newspaper contains depends to a degree on who is evaluating it.4 However, few scholars or people in the industry would use the term quality to describe Thomson newspapers during the 1980s. Thus, the Thomson papers during the 1980s offer a chance to examine what happens when the pursuit of profits reduces the money spent producing newspapers and quality declines. This study examines the connection between Thomson’s emphasis on high profits and a resulting circulation decline.
Perhaps in response to its problems in the 1980s, Thomson Newspapers drastically changed its corporate strategy in the 1990s. The company sold more than 50 newspapers, and by 1997 it had 71 dailies in the United States. According to Stuart Garner, who was president and CEO of Thomson Newspapers in 1997, profit margins are now expected to be about 20 percent. He said the company’s current strategy calls for starting with a good editorial product and integrating that with excellence in circulation, marketing and other organizational functions.5
Economic theory offers a framework for understanding the relationship between newspaper profits and circulation. Industrial organization is the branch of economics that studies the behavior of firms competing in the continuum of market structures that lies between the classic models of perfect competition and perfect monopoly.6
A central question explored by industrial organization models is whether firms attempt to maximize profits. The models suggest that competitive firms must reconcile profit maximization with other goals such as maintaining market share.7 These models describe competition as taking place over a range of dimensions, including attempts to differentiate products by offering varying levels of quality, and generally suggest a strong connection between profitability and market share.8
Newspapers are joint commodities that compete simultaneously in two economic markets.9 One market is the information market, where newspapers provide information in the form of news and advertising to readers. The second market is an advertising market, where newspapers provide advertisers with access to readers. This study is concerned with the demand for newspapers in the information market because the share of this market – measured by circulation – determines a newspaper’s ability to attract advertising.
Barry Litman and Janet Bridges first reported a connection between editorial quality and a newspaper’s commitment of financial resources to news coverage.10This was called the financial commitment theory.
Stephen Lacy reviewed research based on the financial commitment hypothesis to develop a model of how market competition relates to market performance.11 The model suggests that as competition becomes less intense, less money is spent on news. The decrease in newsroom spending lowers the newspaper’s quality. As quality declines, readers get less utility from the newspaper. This results in decreasing market performance in areas such as circulation. Thus, the financial commitment model explains how profit decisions by news organizations may ultimately hurt demand for newspapers.
Another theoretical model suggests more direct relationships between quality, competition and demand.12 This model of news demand is based on the premise that many readers have a minimum level of acceptable quality that they expect from a newspaper. This minimum is represented by a kink in the newspaper’s demand curve. Below the minimum quality level, demand is relatively elastic – readers will more readily substitute other media as quality continues to decline. Above the minimum level demand is relatively inelastic – readers substitute other media less readily in response to declining quality. The kinked demand curve also implies opposite effects – that gains in readership from quality increases are greater below the kink than above the kink.
These theoretical models suggest that newspaper performance has two important interrelated dimensions – profitability and market share. A newspaper’s share of readers is indirectly affected by profit goals because those goals influence quality which in turn determines circulation. The models also suggest the importance of intensity in competition. Changes in the level of competition indirectly affect circulationbecause they influence the money spent on news, which in turn influences quality. The intensity of competition also directly affects circulation because increases in competition provide readers with substitutes while increasing the minimum level of acceptable quality.
Articles in the trade literature have expressed concern about the high level of newspaper profits and their effect on quality.13 However, these articles depend primarily on anecdotal information. Hugh Martin studied the profitability of 15 publicly owned newspaper companies during an 11-year period.14 Comparisons were made with publishing company profits and with yields from government and corporate bonds. In 61 percent of the comparisons, average newspaper profits were at least 50 percent higher than average publishing profits or bond yields.15 However, this study did not examine how profit affects other variables such as circulation.
Studies of ownership
A large number of studies have found mixed results in the relationship between group ownership and content variables.16 Two recent studies chose not to concentrate on group versus non-group ownership and focused instead on the organizational goals pursued by newspaper groups with a high level of public ownership.
The first study examined nine publicly owned newspaper companies.17 Results showed companies that restrict stockholder voting rights to give the original owners or their successors more control place less emphasis on profit margins. As the percentage of company stock controlled by the public increases, so does the emphasis on profit performance.
The second study replicated the first study, but added competition as a variable.18 This study of 11 publicly owned newspaper companies also concluded that increased public control resulted in more emphasis on consistently high earnings, which in turn reduced expenditures in newspaper newsrooms. However, the study also concluded that newspaper companies with high proportions of daily papers facing competition provide more financial resources to those newspapers.
Quality and circulation
Research has produced mixed results about the relationship between quality and circulation. However, some of the variation is related to the nature of samples used and to a lack of controls.
William Blankenburg and Robert Friend concluded that circulation might be affected by increasing newsroom spending at some larger newspapers, but added “apparently this is detrimental to profits.”19 In a regression analysis using 46 dailies, they concluded expenditures on news and editorials were not strongly associated with maintaining newspaper circulation. However, the study did not control for ownership goals or the intensity of competition.
In another study of 29 newspapers, Blankenburg concluded that when revenues flattened during the 1990 slump in the economy, publishers compensated by increasing subscription prices, not by cutting expenditures for news.” However, the sample represented only dailies of moderate size, from 23,000 to 80,000, and the study did not control for the percentage of public ownership or level of competition.
Other studies have found direct relationships between quality and circulation.Lee Becker, Randal Beam and John Russial, in a study of 109 New England newspapers, found that penetration was related to news quality.21
Gerald Stone, Donna Stone and Edgar Trotter found a positive relationship between newspaper quality and circulation in a sample of 124 papers.22 Both studies used expert panels to rate newspaper quality.
Lacy and Frederick Fico used a quality index based on a survey of editors and found that the level of newspaper quality in 1984 was positively related to circulation in 1985 for 106 dailies.23 However, they failed to control for market variables other than population, and the index had only eight content measures.
A study by Blankenburg found high correlations at 149 newspapers between news-editorial staff size, the number of news pages, the news-editorial budget and circulationi.24 He pointed out, however, that one could argue circulation affects these measures as much as the other way around.
In a longitudinal case study, the researcher asked readers why they drop newspapers and concluded the primary reason was dissatisfaction with content.25 Content factors mentioned by participants included overuse of wire copy, predictable and repeated copy, and poor performance by journalists. These factors are consistent with low newsroom expenditures. However, the two-year study was limited because it dealt with only two dozen households.
Overall, most studies that measure quality in some form have found a positive relationship between quality and circulation. The studies addressing public ownership and performance have found a similar relationship between public ownership and high profit margins. Two studies that examined the relationship between high profit margins and newsroom expenditures found evidence of a negative relationship, although the strength of that evidence differed.
Results from studies correlating newsroom expenditures with circulation have been mixed. Some are consistent with the quality studies and some are not. However, these inconsistencies may reflect variations in sample size and selection, a lack of control for some market variables, and the reality that two newsrooms receiving the same percentage of a newspaper’s budget can produce two different levels of quality.
The argument that circulation is not correlated with quality (whether defined by journalists or readers) has little intuitive or theoretical support. If newsroom spending did not matter, newspaper companies could maximize profits by running only wire copy. This, of course, runs counter to the product strategy followed by most newspapers, which emphasizes local coverage. Therefore, the underlying assumptions of this study are:
The quality of local coverage is correlated (although not perfectly) with newsroom expenditures.
Circulation will be positively related to these expenditures.
Very high profit margins will reduce the amount of money spent in the newsroom.
At Thomson Newspapers, revenues declined in the early 1990s after a decade of aggressive pricing, low quality and high profit margins. The company’s CEO responded by announcing an effort to improve the quality of its newspapers and to focus on marketing to readers.26 Theory and research suggest that the low quality and high profit margins of the 1980s affected the circulation of Thomson newspapers. To test this, the following research questions were addressed:
Q1: Did Thomson newspapers have lower circulation than similar non-Thomson newspapers in 1980?
Q2: Did Thomson newspapers have lower circulation than similar non-Thomson newspapers in 1990?
These two questions are based on the negative effects of demands for high profits at newspapers. If corporations require high profit margins, then individual newspapers will cut costs to try to meet those requirements. As costs are cut, each newspaper becomes less attractive to readers because they perceive it as having lower quality. This perception reflects a smaller newshole, fewer journalists to fill the newshole and a variety of possible changes in the news/ editorial content.
Q3: Was the gap in circulation levels between Thomson and nonThomson newspapers greater in 1990 than in 1980?
This question is based on the fact that negative effects of requirements for high profit margins will grow over time because cost cuts will begin to affect crucial elements of newsroom operations. Managers usually cut less essential items when controlling costs. However, if deep cuts extend over long periods the cuts are more likely to affect quality.
Circulation data for Thomson Newspapers and a group of similar nonThomson newspapers were used to examine these three questions. The data were collected for 1980 and 1990, the years representing the approximate beginning and end of the period when Thomson placed special emphasis on profits. Thomson changed its top management and corporate strategy in the early 1990s.27
The original study population included 71 newspapers listed in the 1981 Editor & Publisher International Year Book as belonging to the Thomson group during 1980. Seven papers were eliminated from the study. The eliminated papers included a separate Sunday edition, three newspapers in large, competitive metropolitan areas where the majority of circulation was spread across more than one county, and three papers with more than 32,000 circulation. These papers were dropped because they existed in complex markets that were not consistent with the other newspapers in the study or because they were outliers with respect to circulation. Outliers can exert an inordinate influence on regression analysis.
The remaining 64 newspapers were compared with a control group of 128 newspapers. The control group included two newspapers for each Thomson paper in the study. Control newspapers were selected randomly from states where the Thomson papers were located. The control papers included independent newspapers and newspapers from several other groups. The control papers had publication cycles and circulations that were similar to the Thomson papers, as shown in Table 1.28
In several states the non-Thomson papers approached a census of the dailies that fit the sampling conditions. Because the Thomson papers were a census and the sampling error for the non-Thomson papers would have required extensive adjustments, the 192 dailies in the study were treated as a census and inferential statistics were not used.
Information about each newspaper’s annual circulation and the price of a year’s subscription29 was gathered from the 1981 and 1991 Editor& Publisher International Year Book.30
To control for competition, data about competitors’ penetration rates were gathered from Standard Rate & Data Circulation listings for the relevant years.31 These listings also provided information about two other control variables, the number of households and average household income in each paper’s home circulation area.32
No direct quality measures were available for inclusion in the study. However, the literature and comments by Thomson’s CEO suggest that high profit margins can be a surrogate for low quality. The Thomson requirements of profit margins in the 30 to 40 percent range were almost double the average profit margins found in empirical studies of such margins.33All control variables had interval or ratio level data. The ownership of newspapers was treated as a dummy variable with Thomson papers given a one and non-Thomson papers given a zero. Least-squares hierarchical regression was used to test relationships among variables. The control variables were entered first in the equation, with the ownership variable entered last. The use of hierarchical regression distributes any shared variance to the earlier variables, allowing stricter tests of the influence of the independent variable – Thomson versus non-Thomson ownership.
The use of a dummy variable for ownership makes the interpretation of the regression results more straightforward. The regression coefficient associated with the ownership variable can be interpreted as the amount of circulation that was lost or gained by being a Thomson newspaper.
The data were tested for violations of regression analysis assumptions. All of the variables were within acceptable ranges except households in 1980 and 1990. The distribution of these variables was positively skewed with respective skewness measures of 2.69 and 2.84. These two variables were transformed using the natural log, and the resulting skewness measures were 0.72 and 0.66. The transformation of the household measure increased the adjusted R-squared of the 1980 regression equation from 0.31 to 0.46 and the 1990 adjusted R-squared from 0.29 to 0.42.
Table 1 shows the means for the Thomson and non-Thomson newspapers for 1980 and 1990. In 1980, the two groups were similar in regard to four of six measures including the number of households in their markets, average household income in those markets, circulation, and the level of competition. The Thomson papers charged higher prices than the non-Thomson papers, averaging $58 a year for a home subscription compared with $50. This indicates a more aggressive pricing strategy by Thomson, which is consistent with high profit goals. The Thomson papers in 1980 also had average market penetration levels of 65 percent compared with only 58 percent for non-Thomson newspapers.
In 1990 Thomson and non-Thomson papers were similar in regard to two of the six measures, average income and level of competition. The difference in prices charged by the two groups also remained about the same when compared with 1980. However, the difference in the number of county households increased in 1990 because the counties for non-Thomson newspapers had gained more households during the previous decade.
What is more important, the 1990 average circulation for Thomson newspapers was only 13,294 compared to 14,539 for non-Thomson papers. The average Thomson circulation had decreased by 830 while the average nonThomson circulation had increased by 177.34 This change was reflected in the difference between mean penetration rates for Thomson and non-Thomson papers. The 1980 average penetration for Thomson papers of 65 percent of market households decreased to 53 percent in 1990. However, the 1980 average penetration for non-Thomson papers of 58 percent dropped only to 57 percent in 1990.
The first research question asks: Did Thomson papers have lower circulation in 1980 than similar non-Thomson newspapers? Table 2 shows results from regression analysis, and the answer is yes. In 1980, the regression coefficient for the ownership dummy variable was -1,671. This indicates that after controlling for market variables, a Thomson paper sold 1,671 fewer newspapers than an equivalent non-Thomson newspaper.35
The second research question is: Did Thomson papers have lower circulation than similar non-Thomson papers in 1990? The answer also is yes according to data from Table 2. The 1990 regression coefficient for the ownership dummy variable was -2,292, indicating a Thomson newspaper sold 2,292 fewer copies per day than an equivalent non-Thomson newspaper.
The third question is: Did the gap in circulation between Thomson and non-Thomson newspapers increase between 1980 and 1990. Data from Table 1 and Table 2 show the answer is yes. Non-Thomson papers had an average daily circulation 238 copies higher than Thomson papers in 1980, and by 1990 this gap had increased to 1,245. The regression coefficient for the ownership variable also decreased from -1,671 to -2,292. This indicates that individual Thomson newspapers averaged selling 621 fewer newspapers per day in 1990 than they had sold in 1980.
The affirmative answer to the third question also is supported by the drop in penetration for Thomson newspapers. Thomson papers went from an average of 65 percent penetration in 1980 to 58 percent in 1990. This sevenpercentage point drop was seven times larger than the 1 percentage point drop for non-Thomson newspapers.
This study examined how high profit requirements affect circulation using Thomson newspapers as an example. The results indicate that high shortrun profit margins are associated with declining circulation and circulation revenue. According to the regression analysis, each Thomson paper sold 1,671 fewer newspapers in 1980 and 2,292 fewer newspapers in 1990 than equivalent non-Thomson newspapers, controlling for other factors. Assuming all sales were subscriptions, which usually have a lower price than newsstand copies, the average Thomson newspaper in 1980 lost $96,918 ($58 x 1,671) in circulation revenue compared with non-Thomson papers. In 1990, the average Thomson newspaper lost $208,572 ($91 x 2,292) when compared to the non-Thomson papers in this study. Multiply this loss by 64 newspapers, and Thomson’s high profit requirements cost it $1.33 million in 1990 subscription revenue – a figure that does not count possible losses in advertising lineage because of declining penetration. The circulation loss accumulates across the years because some of these readers would have continued paying for the newspapers for years to come.
These findings are consistent with theory and anecdotal data. The industrial organization model predicts that goals affect market performance. The financial commitment model holds that decreasing financial commitment to the newsroom will reduce quality and, therefore, reduce circulation.36 Results from this study fit this financial model.
The news demand model37 predicts that when newspaper quality slips below a certain level, readers will be quicker to stop subscribing. During the 1980s, readers dropped Thomson newspapers at rates exceeding the loss rates at equivalent newspapers, and this is consistent with the idea of a kinked demand curve for quality in newspapers.
The decline in revenues resulting from decreases in circulation and penetration at Thomson papers, along with possible losses of advertising revenue, help explain why profit margins at Thomson went from close to 40 percent during the early 1980s to 17 percent in 1992.38
Finally, the results here are consistent with several studies of quality and circulation.39
The effects of Thomson ownership were visible while controlling for the number of households in the market, the competition level, the average income in the market and the price of the newspapers. It is possible that other factors may explain the difference between Thomson and non-Thomson newspapers. For example, some newspaper groups cut cost by cutting circulation.40 However, a 7 percentage-point drop in average penetration seems too large to represent cost cutting. This possibility, however, should be examined with future research.
In addition to the support for theory derived from this study, the results have implications for the newspaper industry. Several commentators have warned that cutting costs to obtain high profits will have negative long-run effects on newspapers.41 This study supports those warnings. If newspapers expect to compete successfully with emerging technologies, they must retain as many readers as possible. Trying to maintain above normal profits in the face of growing competition will only lead to reductions in newsroom expenditures and lower quality. The long-run result will be a loss of readers. The accumulation of lost circulation revenue and the impact on the value of advertising (cost per thousand) for businesses can have serious effects on a company’s future profits and even its viability in a rapidly changing media environment.
Research, theory and anecdotes increasingly support the existence of a connection between newspaper company expenditures on newsrooms, product quality and circulation. This study is consistent in supporting that connection. However, additional research that directly examines the links from lower expenditures to lower quality and from lower quality to lower circulation would strengthen the understanding of how profit goals affect long-run newspaper company performance.
1. Leo Bogart, Public Ownership: Does it Compromise Editorial Quality? presstime, June 1996, p. 48; Philip Meyer, Learning to Love Lower Profits. American Journalism Review, December 1995, pp. 40-44; William B. Blankenburg and Gary W. Ozanich, The Effects of Public Ownership on the Financial Performance of Newspaper Corporations. Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1993, pp. 68-75; Stephen Lacy, Mary Alice Shaver and Charles St. Cyr, The Effects of Public Ownership and Newspaper Competition on Financial Performance of Newspaper Corporations: A Replication and Extension. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Summer 1996, pp. 332-341.
2. M.L. Stein, Publisher Pans Peers. Editor & Publisher, February 6, 1988, p. 9.
3. A Change in Strategy, Editor & Publisher, May 1993, p.14.
4. Leo Bogart, Press and Public, 2nd. ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1989, pp. 258-259; and Stephen Lacy and Todd F. Simon, The Economics and Regulation of United States Newspapers. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing,1993, pp. 64-66, 77-80.
5. Stuart Garner, personal interview, May 28,1997.
6. Jean Tirole, The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,1988; F. M. Scherer and David Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3rd. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1990.
7. Scherer and Ross, op. cit., pp. 38-46.
8. Tirole, op. cit., pp. 305-337.
9. Lacy and Simon, op. cit., p. 18.
10. Barry R. Litman and Janet Bridges, An Economic Analysis of American Newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 9-26.
11. Stephen Lacy, The Financial Commitment Approach to News Media Competition.
Journal of Media Economics, Summer 1992, pp. 5-21. 12. Stephen Lacy, A Model of Demand for News: Impact of Competition on Newspaper Content. Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1989, pp. 40-48,128. 13. Bogart, op. cit.; Jonathan Kwitny, The High Price of High Newspaper Profits. Washington Journalism Review, June 1990, pp. 19-29; Meyer, op. cit.; James D. Squires, Plundering the Newsroom. Washington Journalism Review, December 1992, pp. 18-24; Carl S. Stepp, The Thrill is Gone. American Journalism Review, October 1995, pp.14-19.
14. Hugh J. Martin, Measuring Newspaper Profits: Developing a Standard of Comparison. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, in press. 15. Publishing profits were used to measure newspaper company profits against a comparable industry. Returns on bonds were used as a measure of relatively risk-free returns, establishing a general baseline for the minimum profits necessary to persuade entrepreneurs to stay in business. See Ibid.
16. For discussions of these studies, see David Pearce Demers, The Menace of the Corporate Newspaper: Fact or Fiction? Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1996. Also see Lacy and Simon, op. cit. 17. Blankenburg and Ozanich, op. cit. 18. Lacy, Shaver and St. Cyr, op. cit.
19. William B. Blankenburg and Robert L. Friend, Effects of Cost and Revenue Strategies on Newspaper Circulation. The Journal of Media Economics, No. 2,1994, pp.1-13. 20. William B. Blankenburg, Hard Times and the News Hole. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Autumn 1995, pp. 634-641. 21. Lee B. Becker, Randy Beam and John Russial, Correlates of Daily Newspaper Performance in New England. Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1978, pp.100-108. 22. Gerald C. Stone, Donna B. Stone and Edgar P. Trotter, Newspaper Quality’s Relation to Circulation. Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1981, pp.16-24. 23. Stephen Lacy and Frederick Fico, The Link Between Newspaper Content Quality and Circulation. Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1991, pp. 46-57. 24. William B. Blankenburg, Newspaper Scale and Newspaper Expenditures. Newspaper Research Journal, Winter 1989, pp. 97-103. 25. M.D. Hawley, Dropping the Paper: Losing Newspaper Loyalists at the Local Level. James M. Cox Institute for Newspaper Management Studies, University of Georgia,1992.
26. A Change in Strategy, op. cit.
27. A ten-year period was selected because the impact of strategy takes several years to develop. It was assumed that data for shorter time periods would be more likely to reflect individual market variations that would be difficult to control for statistically. 28. For Thomson newspapers with circulation of 15,000 or less, the control papers had circulation within 2,000 of the Thomson papers. For Thomson papers with circulation of more than 15,000, the control papers had circulation within 5,000 of the Thomson papers. The closest available newspapers were used for controls if none fit these criteria. The set of control newspapers included both independent and group dailies, and several groups of varying size were included.
29. The price of a one-year subscription was used when available. Weekly prices were multiplied to obtain an annual price if annual subscription prices were not available. All
prices were for subscriptions in the newspaper’s home county. 30. Editor & Publisher International Year Book. New York: Editor & Publisher,1981. Editor & Publisher International Year Book. New York: Editor & Publisher,1991. 31. Circulation 82. Wilmette, Illinois: Standard Rate & Data Service,1982. Circulation 92. Wilmette, Illinois: Standard Rate & Data Service,1992. 32. The data for competition and household variables was gathered from listings for each newspaper’s home county unless the newspaper was published in a Metropolitan Area. For papers in metro areas, data from listings for the area was used. 33. Blankenburg, op. cit, 1995; Blankenburg and Friend, op. cit; Blankenburg and Ozanich, op. cit.; Martin, op. cit.; Lacy, Shaver and St. Cyr, op. cit. 34. These figures represent a net change because they include people who started buying the newspapers as well as people who stopped buying the newspapers. 35. The figures from a regression analysis are “predictions” of the relationship between the predictor (independent) variable and the criterion variable (dependent). They are not the actual numbers of dropped subscriptions. The actual change in circulation is shown in Table 1, however, that number is a net decrease that includes new subscriptions as well as dropped subscriptions. The regression equation estimates the change in the dependent variable related to the independent variable. The difference between the actual decrease and the “predicted” decrease due to being a Thomson newspaper represents the use of net change for the actual figures and some estimate error. Of course, both the actual data and the “predicted” data show notable drops in circulation for Thomson newspapers compared with non-Thomson newspapers. 36. Lacy, op. cit., 1992; Litman and Bridges, op. cit.. 37. Lacy, op. cit., 1989.
38. A Change in Strategy, op. cit..
39. Becker, Beam and Russial, op. cit.; Blankenburg, op. cit., 1989; Hawley, op. cit.; Lacy and Fico, op. cit.; Stone, Stone and Trotter, op. cit.. 40. William B. Blankenburg, Newspaper Ownership and Control of Circulation to Increase Profits. Journalism Quarterly, Autumn 1982, pp. 390-398. 41. Bogart, op. cit.; John Morton, When Newspapers Eat Their Seed Corn.. American Journalism Review, November 1995, p. 52; Kwitny, op. cit.; Stephen Lacy, Commentary: Ideas for Prospering in a Changing Market.. Newspaper Research Journal, Summer 1992, pp. 85-94.
Lacy is a professor in the School of Journalism at Michigan State University in East Lansing, where Martin is a student in the mass media doctoral program.
Copyright E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Summer 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved