Like another tsunami sweeping onto shore, complaints about changes to the Sunday ONTV guide and cuts to the stock listings poured in for a second week.
But unlike the first week, a significant number of readers also responded by saying they liked the changes to the TV guide, calling it better than the old, booklet-sized one.
Most of the feedback, though, was negative and, in several cases, more critical than before. Maybe people were emboldened knowing more than 3,100 of their fellow readers had similar complaints, as described in detail in last week’s column.
“To say I am angry and disgusted would be an understatement,” wrote Donna Peck of Orangevale, a 30-year subscriber to the paper, and one of the many long-time readers upset with the changes. “Does that make us senior citizens — yes. Does that mean our opinions shouldn’t count?”
The paper, she said, was cavalier and arrogant in making changes she said most readers didn’t want.
“Upset? You’re damn right I am!” said Clay Kowarsh of Roseville, a 20-year subscriber. “The dot-comers are already going to the Web for their news and stock quotes … and now you are set in driving the loyal subscribers to a medium that we find uncomfortable in using (compared to the paper) … so now you’re in a lose-lose situation.”
Bob Berrigan, a Bee subscriber since 1977, is a lawyer who lives in Carmichael. He was offended by my article explaining the changes, which he called “indefensible.”
“You and the editors are not listening to your customers — for every person who took the time to write, call or e-mail The Bee, there are probably 10 more who have the same feelings,” he wrote in his e-mail. “Your rationale … about change being good and in the interest of the economic well-being of The Bee is fallacious; no business is going to survive that ignores negative feedback from its customers.”
And so it went as several dozen readers accused the paper of “committing suicide,” of extracting unreasonable profit, of taking readers for granted while also driving them away. One even harkened to a little homespun barnyard folklore.
“I am reminded of the old story of the farmer who decided that he could save feeding costs for his horse by removing an ounce of feed a day,” said one reader. “It worked just fine until one day the horse died. Your publisher and executive editor might want to ponder that.”
To briefly summarize, The Bee reduced the number of stock listings to save newsprint costs and because the paper’s senior editors are convinced most readers now follow their investments online.
As part of the changes, the paper expanded its online stock-tracking features and has added back to the paper stocks specifically requested by readers.
As for television, the small, bound ONTV Sunday magazine — which attracted few ads and lost money — was eliminated. It was replaced by a tabloid-size ONTV magazine in Sunday’s Ticket+; it is published in-house rather than by a more expensive outside printer as the old TV book was.
The new guide provides more content and resurrects 24-hour programming, dropped a few years ago. In response to some of the complaints, the paper is again publishing synopses of “best bets” viewing.
Last week, only a smattering of readers said they liked the new TV guide. This week, many others joined in, making up roughly 25 percent of all responses.
These readers liked the 24-hour programming schedule; they said the bigger guide is easier to find; they think it’s easier to read.
“I noted … that some readers don’t like the new TV guide format. ‘Too big,’ they say,” e-mailed John McFadden, a North Natomas resident and subscriber since 1974. “I beg to differ and am pleased to congratulate The Bee on creating a superior TV guide, much better than the old ‘small’ one.”
“I feel the complaints about the new ONTV magazine are not valid,” wrote Dale Armstrong, a long-time subscriber, in his e-mail. “One can see the abysmal ad space does not justify printing the magazine outside The Bee. We also like the expanded coverage.”
Last week, several senior editors, including executive editor Rick Rodriguez, explained the rationale for the changes.
I also spoke to Howard Weaver. He is vice president for news at The Bee’s corporate parent; before that, he was editor of the Anchorage Daily News, then editor of The Bee’s editorial pages. While Weaver wasn’t involved in The Bee’s recent decisions, he offers a view that puts the changes in context, at least from the corporate perspective.
The challenge today, he said, is having to operate in two very different systems, print and online, while keeping to one journalistic mission: civic and community service.
And while he sees the newspaper as essential and remaining robust for a long time, Weaver said it’s clear the company’s future growth lies online, not in the newspaper.
Thus the constant refining and retooling and reallocating of resources, he said.
It’s unrealistic to expect the paper not to ever change, he said, and if that’s the line in the sand some readers are making, “then we can’t make you happy.”
“I know we’re a beloved institution and people get upset when it changes,” Weaver said. “I want us to meet their needs all that we can, but to say we can never change … the world changes.”
Weaver cites the example of The Bee going from an afternoon paper to a morning one in 1978.
“People were upset then and some didn’t like it, but if we hadn’t made the change, we’d be dead today,” he said. “That’s where the market was going.”
