Birmingham Post editor Marc Reeves has revealed he would prefer the title to go weekly once a consultation over its future is finished.

A lengthy posting on his blog details two main options for the Post – becoming a large, once-a-week title of around 96 pages, most likely on a Thursday, or reducing daily pagination to below 50 pages with more agency and non-local copy.

The pronouncements come after parent company Trinity Mirror announced yesterday it was consulting staff, advertisers and trade unions on the future of its Midlands division, with up to 85 jobs under threat.

Marc wrote: “Cards on the table? I believe the weekly model is the best option for the Post.

“There’s a lot of emotion connected to the supposed status of being a daily paper and many of my contacts in the city regularly state baldly to me that ‘Birmingham simply must have a daily business paper’.

“Increasingly, our diet of daily and immediate news is fed by online services and broadcast media, and newspapers have a much reduced role in bringing news we didn’t hear first somewhere else.

“Papers are increasingly more about providing analysis, comment and insight.

“I believe that should be the role of the Post in print – to explain and examine the big decisions and issues in the region, while keeping readers up to date with the immediate through our website and other online services.

“A substantial, value-for-money weekly package is surely the best home for this, where the very best elements of the Post’s coverage can be found all in one place.”

Comments

Outraged! (26/08/2009 14:49:55)
shocking to favour an option which kills more jobs!

Chris Towner (26/08/2009 15:07:51)
I cannot accept Marc Reeves’ premise that ” newspapers have a much reduced role in bringing news we didn’t hear first somewhere else.” We should be digging out the news that nobody has heard before. Of course, that requires reporters and a decent editorial budget. . . ’nuff said!

Subbed Out (26/08/2009 16:25:23)
It’s terrible to hear a newspaper editor talking like that, although to be fair to him, the ultimate decision will be taken by people much higher up the food chain.
What a pity newspaper companies don’t have the guts to produce first-class products that more people will want to buy instead of going into full-scale retreat, cutting costs and, as a result, quality.
I used to see the Post every morning in my office – before I got the chop myself – and it was a daily figure of fun for us. Painfully thin, badly designed and boring. And as for that full page of pictures they do or did on the back, pathetic.
No wonder no-one buys it.
Another sorry tale of the total mismanagement of this country’s newspaper industry. Hari kari on a grand scale.
Jesus, I’m glad to be out of it.

FAST WOMAN (26/08/2009 16:39:02)
I don’t know why you are shocked, Outrage.
It works like this: editors are involved fairly swiftly when companies consider things such changes. They then have a short period to consider whether they can go with the options. If they can, then it’s part of their job to sell it to staff and readers. If they can’t, it’s time to move on.
Marc Reeves actually makes a good case for the clearly preferred option.
He does state though that city contacts say there must be a daily business paper.
In that case I wonder if they have thought of producing a sharp, quick to read business paper, say 36 pages Mon-Wed, at reduced cover price. Then a weighty, high value £1 insight and supplement issue on sale Thurs/Fri.
This might fit in with the desires of the readership and their work/reading time. Why not a halfway house between daily and weekly?

Chris Youett (27/08/2009 09:54:28)
I wasn’t surprised at the news as we have a major media group who desperately believes that giving news away online for almost nothing with be its financial saviour. The world’s most powerful company, IBM, looked at this business model and quickly came to the conclusion that it would never make any money. Microsoft agreed! One thing the IT industry learned years ago is that if customers really want a service, they will pay a premium price for it. So why isn’t Marc Reeves arguing that the online subscription should be £50 per month? This would generate an extra £45 per month gross profit per digital reader (or an extra £2,700,000 profit for Post & Mail)???

plugged in (27/08/2009 12:52:11)
The problem is that if you charge too much for something, someone will provide it for free, or for less. Take Microsoft – it has dozens of rivals offering free alternatives which are good enough for the majority of users – Google Docs, Open Office for example. Simply saying “pay or don’t get it online” ignores the way the web works and the fact people expect their news for free.

Outraged! (27/08/2009 13:15:26)
did the post relaunch not deserve more than 6 months? a lot of Brum staff put a lot of effort into making this work, and for what?

Chris Youett (28/08/2009 09:57:54)
Sorry Plugged In, but the anoraknet doesn’t work any differently from any other computer application. If site owners aren’t getting sufficient revenue in, they go bust. The idea that there are loads of news agencies trying to under-cut each other is also false. All agencies would like to see their rates go up by 10-20% to give them the financial stability. The history of the computer industry has consistently shewn that if people really want a service – whether it be boring IBM CICS, weather reports or online news – they will pay a premium for it.

Blink (01/09/2009 10:56:01)
Headline: “Post editor reveals his wishes for title’s future”
True meaning: “Post editor reveals plans for keeping his own job”