“r Y'." ”7"

an’nqr 1”;

Minn?“ 3:53:53: '7»? 7:5 ms: :3.

.‘ ..‘ ...:y 4‘3. “3‘“ ‘.\,.‘-“-|." '1. .‘ -.£"t . .- u‘

4!.“ Bus b 1'. ’.\:.~.LB". 32'... ‘5’! Lfifi‘ J'u’.’ J“ n as .2.“ o
‘ tn"'-:'.~:;':~§.v' van-guy: 3 .3._'.f§_
;‘a¢.‘- In *2 :53: fin; :2 "" 'g'ty ‘86- . . ‘i J3
v; L"~L:V'..:I“: bh'h B. .mtiis‘

;:._='~|'"‘- ' 1‘3.

‘i-i'gaa‘e.‘ (3ny 33115 fiat-vwfi
Ola-5%.; a"! ‘u‘d ddféov

*P-f‘n-H'm' ~- «rafts-ad-

II “
3'; i .s -" _
..1aJ4...v¢Lt'*..'a 5“.“ v

Q’ao‘flnfl.fi‘ "m.—

=3 ' 3‘
. . as
.IOJ“O. Kg.

9. Q
4:1;

'4:
t’POrII-Jy a (13:35:
3 "

tin-Cui- u’. .L'a

(it!) I“;
(3/)

5.
96333.1. fin-
' .' a-

9}: T? ."

an
a.“ _‘
ii if.” ~.’..*a .4]

.0- .0-

‘.._r -flfiffi'o

.. . “If ' _ J
3 a. . -.\u’ a . .

0... ”up
I II t
58:» .Jabn’

W"?
{1‘

 

«mun I IN! ”WWW

3 1293301103 0594 -

   
  

LIBRARY
‘ Midiigan Stat:
U15 qu . .

 

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item
EURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

' 2 ~ “3“,, 3;” Place in book return to remove
-‘- "’ ' ' charge from circulation records

till"\\\\ t

P“

 

4 ”N22 "71999

 

 

 

Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism,
College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State

University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

the Master of Arts degree. ,
fl/Qlj

Chairman

 

Date

ARSTRACT
Characteristics of Ownership of Michigan
Weekly and Semi-Weekly Newspapers
By
Thomas R. Standley

This study examines ownership of Michigan weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers, and how the characteristics of
ownership relate to group and single-ownership newspapers
The study attempted to find differences between newspapers
in group-ownership and single ownership. The study made use
of a 19 question survey which was sent to 258 Michigan
weekly and semi-weekly newspapers. Results from the 226
responding newspapers are analyzed in the study.

Since little data could be found on group-ownership of
Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspapers, the study was
descriptive in nature. The survey included questions on
circulation, staff size, number of newspapers owned, whether
the publisher was also the editor, location of the
newspapers, length of ownership, previous ownership, average
number of pages published, method of delivery, and
competition.

The study found significant differences between
single-ownership and group-owned newspapers in nearly all of

the areas the survey covered. Significant differences were

also discovered between groups consisting of two newspapers,
and groups of three or more newspapers.

One of the major findings of the study was that
group-owned newspapers on the average face strong
competition from other weekly newspapers, while
single-ownership newspapers on the average cited shoppers, a
non-news medium, as their strongest source of competition.
The study also indicated that group-ownership newspapers in
Michigan seem to be expanding through the acquisition of
existing newspapers rather than the founding of new
newspapers. Generally, group-owned newspapers occupied
stronger positions on the average than single-ownership

newspapers in most areas of the study.

GROUP OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN
WEEKLY AND SEMI-WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS

By

Thomas R. Standley

A THESIS

Submitted to

Nichigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. Introduction.......................................1
II. Methodology........................................5
III. Survey Results....................................ll
IV. Conclusions.......................................76
Bibliography..............................................93

Appendix...OOOOOOCIOCCOOOOCOOO...0.0.0.0....0000000000000096

ii

15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Newspapers 0wned..........................13
Circulation.........................................15
Location............................................19
Combined Advertising......................4...-.....22
Combined Pages/Sections.............................23
Years 0wned.........................................27-
Previous 0wnership..................................30
Age of Newspaper....................................33
Central Plant Usage.................................37
Central Plant Ownership.............................h0
Newspaper Printing Process..........................h1
Form Taken to Central P1ant.........................hh
Combined Editor-Owner Role..........................50
Staff Size..........................................53
Format of Newspapers................................57
Average Number of Pages.............................59
Delivery Methods... ................................62
Considering Delivery Change.........................68

CompetitionOOOCOOO000.00.000.00.00....‘000000000000072

iii

CHAPTER ONE

This study will be an examination of ownership of
weekly newspapers in Michigan. The central effort will be
to identify some of the characteristics of weekly and semi-
weekly newspapers in group and single-ownership.

Weekly and semi-weekly newspapers are neglected areas
of research in journalism. Concentration of ownership in
the daily newspaper field has been explored at some length
by researchers such as Raymond B. Nixon of the University
of Minnesota, but little research has been done on weekly
and semi-weekly newspapers.

After even a short examination of concentration of
ownership among weeklies, it becomes apparent concentration
of ownership in the daily newspaper field is not the same as
in the weekly and semi-weekly newspaper field. There are
similarities, but the differences are what are the most
striking as will be discussed later in the study.

This study will center on a survey of Michigan weekly
and semi-weekly newspapers. An attempt will be made to
examine certain characteristics of the newspapers which in
many cases reveal strong differences between the newspapers
in group and non-group ownership. An examination of the
differences between very small groups consisting of two

newspapers and larger groups of three newspapers or more

will also be made.

Because of the lack of research this study is
descriptive in nature. It will seek to develop some basic
information about ownership of Michigan weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers.

The question of who controls the press, including the
weekly and semi-weekly press, is one of the most important
questions that can be asked in a democracy. One of the
primary objections to group-ownership over the years is the
contention it could significantly reduce the number of
viewpoints to which the public has access and seriously
impair the quality of news when only a few people control
what appears in print.

Writing about the takeover of a community newspaper by
a group, Rick Pullen, then a graduate student at Southern
Illinois University, stated that:

Apparently as a result of the conglomerate's
quest for profits, subscribers are receiving an
inferior product. Working conditions that led to
the resignation of qualifed news people and hiring
of inexperienced workers negatively affected the
quality of the newspaper. An earlier deadline
results in stories being held over for a second
day. Lack of local news has violated, according
to some subscribers, the purpose of a
newspaper.(1)

The intention of this study, however, is not to prove
that group-ownership is either good or bad, but to describe

the trend toward concentration of ownership of Michigan

weekly and semi-weekly newspapers, and to examine

1. Rick Pullen. "When the Chain Came to Town," - roo
Editor, (May/June 1972) p. 17.

3

differences in the characteristics between group and
non-group newspapers.

The types of characteristics to be explored include
the location of the growth of weekly newspapers in suburban
parts of the state, the decline of the weekly newspaper in
rural areas, and the role of the centralized printing plant
and its relationship to group and single-ownership. David
R. Bowers has explored the role of the centralized printing
plants, and the potential they represent as a mechanism for
group-ownership.(2) Bowers discovered that some weekly
newspapers with financial problems and up selling out to the
owners of centralized printing plants where they have
accumulated large bills. it should also be pointed out that
Bowers views centralized printing plants as a source of hope
for new newspapers. He maintains the rising cost of
publishing out an offset newspaper may mean that most weekly
newspapers will have to turn to centralized printing plants
to survive.

Most of the studies on weekly newspapers in the past
have been limited to case studies, or a collection of
information from a number of sources easily obtainable.
John Cameron Sim, one of the few persons to take a look at

the change in weekly newspapers in depth, brought together a

2. David R. Bowers, "The Impact of Centralized Printing on

the Community Press." goucnalism anrtgrly h6(Spring 1969)
pp. h5-h6.

z.

wealth of information from different sources and provided an
excellent analysis.(3) Case studies have in the past
centered on one newspaper or group of newspapers. Both
types of studies will be cited in this study to illustrate
the implications of the survey.

The few existing statistical studies on numbers of
newspapers in group-ownership deal exclusively with daily
newspapers. Few reliable figures on group-ownership of
weekly newspapers in the United States could be found. This
lack of information was one of the primary reasons the
decision to survey Michigan weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers was made.

A very important source of information on the creation
and dissolution of weekly and semi-weekly newspapers is the
Michigan Press Association's Hflsmigan,fl§wspapgg‘QLLegtng
and Ratgbgok which includes extensive information on all
member newspapers of the association. Only six to eight
newspapers in Michigan are not members of the organization.
By comparing past issues with the more current issues of the
directory it is possible to get some idea of which
newspapers have closed their doors, check the circulation of

the newspapers, and determine their location.

3. John L. Sim. The Grass Roots Eggssi AmnggaLs
QQEEQQLLX Ngwspapgrs (Iowa State University Press, 1969)

CHAPTER TWO

Central to the study is the 19 question survey of 226
Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspapers. Ih§,fl1§hlg§n
Newspaper Cirggtory and Ratebgok was the source for all of
the names and addresses originally sent survey forms.

The directory includes 258 weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers, all members of the Michigan Press Association.
Only six to eight weekly and semi-weekly newspapers in the
state are not members of MPA.(1) Three non-member newspapers
owned by publishers who also had newspapers with HPA
membership were turned up. Of the 258 newspapers sent
surveys, 22h cf the association newspapers responded,
including one reporting that it had ceased publication.
Counting responses from only the 258 newspapers originally
sent survey forms, the study had a 86.8 percent rate of
return.

The first mailing of the survey was completed in
August of 1976. After a two week waiting period all of the
non-responding newspapers were sent a follow-up letter along
with another survey form and stamped self-addressed return
envelope.

The questionnaire was kept as short and simple as

1. Michigan Press Association. Michigan Newsgagg:

Dicggggry and Ratebook, (East Lansing: Michigan Press
Association, 1976) pp. 7-33.

6

possible to maximize the rate of return. The annual survey
done by the National Newspaper Association on weekly
newspaper costs points out the dangers of attempting to ask
for too much detail on a self-administered survey form. IL;

1926 ngkiy Newspaper Cost Study attempted to gather

extensive information on cost and income from weekly
newspapers in the United States and Canada. It ended with a
total of only 316 returns, and of that total 22 responses

were from Canadian newspapers.(2) Gerald C. Stone wrote in

Journalism Quarterly:

The NNA study receives approximately eight
percent response from some 5,000 weekly
newspapers. Since the return rates for the two
national surveys are so low--and in view of recent
research findings that respondents differ greatly
from non-respondents--both associations and the
individual publishers who depend on their reports
must be skeptical of the validity of these
surveys. Superior newspapers may be over
represented in the studies because the method of
securing data--which is the same method used by
most other broadly based surveys of community
newspapers--is the mail questionnaire. The
response rate from these surveys predictably
decreases with the length of the questionnaire
sent, the sensitivity of the information sought,
and the size of the publications whose owners and
editors receive the forms.(3)

An attempt was made to evaluate the logic and
construction of the survey form along with its feasibility

with a pilot study in the spring of 1976. Some small

2. National Newspaper Association, 1976 Wgekiy Ngwgpaper
Cost Stgdy, (Washington 0.0., 1976) p. 3.
3. Gerald C. Stone, "Validation of Economic Surveys in the

Weekly Newspaper Field," Journalism Ouacteciy, 53(Summer
1976) pp. 312-313.

7

changes were made in the format of the survey, although it
retained its basic content and structure. The rate of
return of the pilot study was comparable to the final
survey.

After a follow-up letter all of the data from the
survey forms received was transferred to optical scanning
sheets. A University of Toledo optical scanner transferred
the data to standard 80-column computer cards. Directives
using programs from the Statistical Eagkaga f9; tag Sagial
Salangaa were keypunched on standard computer cards, and the
data was processed on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan
State University.(h)

Using an optical scanner involved the balancing of the
constraints of time and money against a number of
disadvantages posed by using the scanner. Earl R. Babbie

summarized the inherent dangers of using this method.

This use of the optical scanner provides

greater accuracy and speed of keypunching. There
are several disadvantages, however, which should
be mentioned: first, coders find it very

difficult to transfer data to the special sheets.
Using the conventional code sheet, the coder
simply finds the appropriate code number in the
next blank Space on the sheet. The configuration
of op-sense sheets, however, hampers this. Often
it is more difficult to locate the appropriate
space to blacken. Past experience suggests that

h. Norman H. Nie et al. Stati§tiga| Baggaga fog tha
l Salaagaa, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hiil,

5min.
1975)pp. 19h-201, 218-2h5.

8
these difficulties result in a greater expenditure
of time and greater inaccuracy, which often
offsets the gains.(5)

An effort was made to minimize the weaknesses of this
method by using two workers to process op-scan sheets. One
person read the response while the other coded the op-scan
sheet. The difficulties in obtaining access to a keypunch
made using the op-scan sheets a necessity.

The survey was designed to find out if differences
existed between group-owned and non-group newspapers in a
number of basic areas. Included on the survey were items
such as circulation. The size of a newspaper's circulation
has important implications in terms of the newspaper's
financial strength as will be discussed in Chapter Three and
Chapter Four.

Questions were asked on whether the newspaper was
located in a urban/suburban area or a rural area, and if the
editor of the newspaper was the owner or someone hired by
the owner or owners. Location was considered important as
an indication of whether or not group-ownership was
occurring primarily in metropolitan or rural areas or if
location had no relationship to type of ownership. Since
many weekly and semi-weekly newspapers have combined the
role of editor and publisher, large numbers of editors hired
by the owners would be a significant change from the past.

The question central to the entire study is group

size. In the study a group is defined as any two or more

5. Earl R. Babbie. Survey Raseacgh Methods (Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Pooks, 1973) pp. 199-200.

newspapers under the same ownership. Groups are broken down
further to include those groups consisting of only two
newspapers and groups made up of three or more newspapers.
As will become apparent when the survey results are
described in detail in the next chapter, there are
significant differences between groups consisting of two
newspapers and larger groups as well as single-ownership
newspapers.

One of the problems that developed with determining
the number of newspapers in groups was that in very large
groups, the person filling out the survey form did not know
how many newspapers the firm owned. In other cases the
group was so decentralized that for all practical purposes
it was really two or more newspaper groups. An example is
Towne Courier Publications, Inc. in East Lansing and
Observer/Eccentric Newspapers in the Detroit suburbs. Both
are owned by the same firm, but each failed to mention the
existence of the other on the survey form.

A series of four questions were closely interrelated.
First, newspapers were asked whether the newspaper was
printed in a central plant, secondly in what stage of
completion it was shipped to the central plant, what type of
printing press was used, and if the central plant was owned
by the newspaper's firm.

Questions were asked on whether the newspaper was
previously owned by a group or individual, the age of the

newspaper, and how many years the newspaper had been owned

10
by the same PUb‘iSher or publishing firm.

Respondents were asked the average number of pages the
newspaper published each week, whether the newspaper used a
tabloid or broadsheet format, and what printing process was
used to produce the newspaper.

Newspapers were asked about what type of delivery
methods they used and whether or not the newspaper was
considering finding a new method of delivery because of
rising postage rates.

Finally, it was asked from what medium the newspaper
faced the strongest competition. The following chapter

outlines the results of the survey.

CHAPTER THPFE

More than half of the newspapers responding to the
survey reported they were owned by groups. In all, 11h of
the 226 neWSpapers that returned survey forms said they were
part of a newspaper group.

Many of the groups were not large. Groups consisting
of only two newspapers accounted for an of the 11h
group~owned newspapers in the survey. Clearly, the typical
weekly or semi-weekly newspaper group in Michigan is not a
conglomerate. The results of the survey which follow
indicated there was no single easy classification that
group-owned newspapers could he slipped into by the
researcher.

Groups consisting of just two newspapers will be
considered separately from groups of three newspapers or
more. Many of the characteristics of the two newspaper
groups were different from both larger groups and
single-ownership newspapers. The differences will become
apparent when the results of the survey are listed.

it should be pointed out that not included in the
study are shoppers or other cross-media ownership
situations. A number of the respondents made marginal notes
indicating their advertising was sold in combination with

shoppers they owned. Traditionally, shoppers owned by

11

12

newspapers cover an area roughly similar to that of the
newspaper or newspapers.

Circulation of newspapers in group-ownership tended to
be higher than newspapers in single-ownership. Generally,
the larger the circulation of the newspaper, the more likely
it was group-owned. Newspapers of less than 3,000
circulation accounted for 26.7 percent or 60 of 225 of the
total responding to the question. Sixty newspapers or 58.8
percent of the 102 newspapers responding said they were in
single-ownership.

At the top end of the circulation scale only 25 of the
79 newspapers in groups of larger than three newspapers had
less than 3,000 circulation, or about 31.6 percent.
Compared to all of the 225 responding newspapers those 25
newspapers accounted for just 11.1 percent of the survey
total.

Groups consisting of two newspapers totaled an of the
responding newspapers, or 19.6 percent of all the newspapers
in the survey. Of that number 21 or h7.7 percent were in
the 3,000 or under circulation class. The circulation of
newspapers in groups consisting of two newspapers was
significantly different from either single-ownership
newspapers or groups of three or more newspapers. The
average circulation fell between the large group newspapers
and single-ownership newspapers.

Exactly the opposite tended to be true for the larger

circulation newspapers in the study. For example,

13

TABLE 1

NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS OWNED

 

 

 

 

Number of ’ Relative Cumulative

newspapers Frequency Frequency Frequency

owned Percentage Percentage
1........... 102 45.1 45.1
2........... 44 19.5 64.6
3........... 18 8.0 72.6
4........... 7 3.1 75.7
5........... 12 5.3 81.0
6........... 3 1.3 82.3
7........... 1 0.4 82.7
8........... 3 1.3 84.1
9........... 3 1.3 85.4
11.......... 1 0.4 85.8
12.......... 13 5.8 91.6
36.......... 18 8.0 99.6
Total....... 1 0.4 100.0

 

 

 

 

1L.

newspapers in single-ownership with more than 3,000
circulation totaled 42 of those 102 responding newspapers.
Twenty-five of those newspapers were in the 3,001-5,000
circulation class.

Groups consisting of two newspapers had 23 of their
number in the 3,000 or more circulation range, or 52.2
percent of the newspapers in that type of ownership. As in
the single-ownership situation, a large number of those
newspapers, ii in all, were in the 3,001-5,000 circulation
range.

Groups consisting of three or more newspapers had 54
of their total number of 79 or 68 percent in the 3,000 or
more circulation range. Twenty-one of the newspapers had
circulations of 3,001-5,000.

The conclusion here is that group-ownership newspapers
are occupying a stronger position in terms of circulation
than are single-ownership newspapers. This fact has
important implications in terms of advertising rates and
other financial considerations since traditionally
newspapers with larger circulations can charge higher
advertising rates.

Looking at just where groups are located in terms of
whether the newspapers are in a rural area or metropolitan
setting, it becomes clear there are differences between
group and non-group newspapers. Groups consisting of two
newspapers fell statistically between the larger groups and

newspapers in single ownership situations. Of all of the

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2
CIRCULATION
Relative Cumulative
Circulation Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percentage Percentage
0 to 1,000 17 7.5 7.5
1,001 to 3,000 89 39.4 46.9
3,001 to 5,000 57 25.2 72.1
5,001 to 7,000 21 9.3 81.4
7,001 to 10,000 12 5.3 86.7
10,001 to 15,000 13 5.8 92.5
15,001 to 20,000 10 4.4 96.9
'20,000 or more 7 3.1 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

16

newspapers responding to the question on whether they were
located in an urban or suburban as compared to a rural area,
130 or 57.5 percent said they were in a rural area while 94
or 41.6 percent said they were in a metropolitan area. One
garbled response was thrown out.

Single ownership newspapers reported that only 27.5
percent of their number were in urban or suburban areas, or
28 of 102. In groups consisting of two newspapers 15 or
34.9 percent said they were in urban or suburban areas,
while 28 or 63.6 percent were considered to be in rural
areas. In groups of three newspapers or more, 50 of the
newspapers reported they were in urban or suburban areas out
of a total of 79 newspapers or 63.3 percent.

There has been a belief in the past that most of the
growth of weekly and semi-weekly newspapers has been in the
suburbs. Charles E. Hayes, editor of the §ybygban,l;lh,
group of weekly newspapers inserted into copies of the
Chicago Itibgne distributed into the suburbs of Chicago,
argued in gLa§§L9935, figligg that the greatest growth
potential for community newspapers existed in the suburbs:

The suburbs now control a fast-growing share
of the nation's buying power. Suburban families
currently earn 20 percent more than city families
and hold 60 percent of all personal income flowing
to metropolitan areas. The growing economic power
of suburbs reflects the continued exodus of people
to the suburbs. During the l9605, core city
population rose by half a percent a year compared
to population increases of 2.4 percent a year in
the suburbs. This trend has intensified since
1970 with city populations declining by half a

percent a year in the city and suburban
populations rising by two percent a year.(1)

17

One implication Is that while group-ownership is an
important factor in Michigan urban and surburban areas, it
is also an important factor in rural ownership of Michigan
weekly newspapers. The survey results indicate that
group-ownership is a force in rural areas of Michigan.
While most group-owned newspapers are located in
metropolitan areas of the state, it is also important to
remember that 36.7 percent of the larger group newspapers,
and 65.1 percent of the groups consisting of two newspapers
were located in rural areas. That would mean the generally
held idea of rural newspapers being on the road to
extinction may be incorrect, at least in Michigan.

While rural weekly and semi-weekly newspapers in
Michigan are not heading toward extinction, they are and
have changed during the past few years. A number of rural
newspapers have recently disappeared, an occurrence that
John Cameron Sim viewed as a benefit:

indeed, for the weekly press as a whole,
suburban or "hometown," the disappearance of these
marginal operations, poorly printed, without
editorials, erratic in news coverage filling space
with publicity hlurbs, has to be an advantage,
much as one may sympathize with the little
community which loses its "own" paper. if one
serves as a judge in state newspaper contests as
the author has, he will surely be impressed (and
distressed) at the ease and speed with which
literally scores of newspapers can be immediately
tossed out of consideration for any common
category--news, editorials, features, pictures,
advertising. Too many of these poorly run papers
have persisted well beyond their time, and they

now do little more than contribute to the

1. Charles E. Hayes, "Newspaper Growth Action is in the
Suburbs," fiLflifiLQQli Editgc 17(Spring 1976) p. 3.

18

stereotype image (fostered even by some recent
documentary programs) held by much of the American
public of the weekly newspaper as a laughable old
relic filled with trivia.(2)

Sim believes a sharp decline in the number of weekly
newspapers in the first part of the century was generally
attributable to inflated figures.(3)

The decline in weekly newspapers has been consistent
though, especially in rural areas. In his study of the
demise of weekly newspapers in 488 towns of less than 1,000
population between 1950 and 1959, Wilbur Peterson found a
net loss of 12 newspapers in Michigan. He found a total of
187 rural weeklies located in communities of less than 1,000
in the state. According to Peterson's figures 18 newspapers
disappeared and six new newspapers came on the scene.

A quick comparison of the 1964 and 1976 editions of
the Mighigag Newspaper Directopy and Patgbogk revealed the
trend toward fewer weekly and semi-weekly newspapers has
continued until the present. In all, 59 weekly newspapers
were not listed to appear in the 1976 edition that were
listed in the 1964 edition. Some five to ten weekly

newspapers are not members of the Michigan Press

Association, but the directory was used because it is

2. John L. Sim. lbs was 3.921.: 33.5.5.1 mm
C mmunity Newspapgcs (Iowa State University Press, 1969) p.

62.
3. Ibid., pp. 37-39.
4. Wilbur Peterson, "Losses in Country Weekly Newspapers

Heavy in 19505," Jgugnallgm Q“a[;g[]y, 38(Winter 1961) p.
18.
5. Michigan Press Association, Mighigan Newspaper flnggggLy

and Ratebggk, East Lansing, Michigan, 1964) pp. 7-36.

19

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3
LOCAT ION
Relative Cumulative
Location 'Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percentage Percentage
Urban/Suburban 94 41. 6 41. 6
Rural 130 57-5 99-6
No response 2 0.4 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

20

generally more current than other sources.(5)(6)

Rural newspapers that disappeared from the list during
the 1964-1976 period had an average circulation of l,l67,
while the average circulation of newspapers that left the
list as a whole was 2,533.

Frank Rucker and Herbert Lee Williams listed seven
advantages of group-ownership in their book flgwspapg;
Q;ganlzajlgn_ and, Maflaggmggt. The advantages Rucker and
Williams listed included:

1. Supplies may be purchased through a central office
with discounts for quantity.

2. Advertising space may be sold nationally, with a
single organization representing all of the newspapers in
the group.

3. Accounting methods can be standardized, permitting
easy comparison of properties and quick corrections of
administrative errors.

4. Encouragement and stamina are given to publishers
within the group through exchange of ideas and experiences.

5. First rights to valuable features are obtained
more easily.

6. Ownership of newspaper stock can be made available
to promising journalists who otherwise might not be able to
obtain it.

7. Certain details of bookkeeping and other office

6. Michigan Press Association, Mighigan figwspang Ellggtggx
and Ratgbgog, East Lansing, Michigan, 1976) pp. 8-33.

21

procedures for all newspapers may be centered in a common
office.(7)

The problem with a list like the one above is that it
is a little misleading. Most group-ownership situations do
not use all of the seven advantages listed. Management
styles vary from newspaper to newspaper, just as they vary
among any group of busineses. An example is from the
observations of the author while attempting to get survey
forms returned from different newspapers. Panax
Corporation, which has a number of newspapers in the Detroit
area, had a highly decentralized office structure, with
offices all over the Detroit metropolitan area.

One of the advantages that Rucker and Williams do not
mention, is the use of common pages and sections. Common
pages and sections were found to be used almost exclusively
by group newspapers in the study. Normally, common pages
and sections are used by groups located around a single
geographic area such as Detroit. The use of combination
pages and sections allows the easy and economical sale of
advertising under a combination rate and cuts costs to the
groups which would otherwise be paying more to produce
separate pages in each of its newspapers.

Common pages and sections for newspapers in the study

accounted for only two percent of single-ownership

7. Frank Rucker and Herbert Lee Williams, flgwspang

chanization and Managgmgnt, 3rd ed. (Ames, iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1969) p. 21.

22

TABLE 4

COMBINED ADVERTISING

 

 

 

 

. Relative Cumulative

Combined
. . Frequency Frequency Frequency

Advert1s1ng Percentage Percentage
Yes 97 42.9 42.9
No 124 54.9 97.8
Does not apply 1 ‘ 0.4 98.2
No Response 4 1.7 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

Note: All figures rounded to the nearest tenth.

23

TABLE 5

COMBINED PAGES/SECTIONS

 

 

 

 

Combined Relative Cumulative
. Frequency Frequency Frequency
Pages/Sections Percentage Percentage
Yes 68 30.1 30.1
No 152 67.3 97.4
Does not apply I 0.4 97.8
No response 5 2.2 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

24

newspapers. Groups consisting of two newspapers, as
expected made more use of common pages with 15 of 44 or 34.1
percent using the technique. Groups with three newspapers
or more in the study responding to the question made
extensive use of common pages and sections. Of the Si
newspapers in larger groups, 26 or 51 percent said they were
using the technique. Six reSponses were not used because of
problems interpreting them.

As mentioned before, the other advantages to the
common page or section is the ability to sell advertising
easily at a combination rate. Only one press run instead of
one for each newspaper is needed to produce the page and the
advertisement, saving money in make-up costs and printing,
not to mention added editorial costs if the news in each
section or on each page is different. Of the 226 newspapers
responding to the question on whether advertising was sold
using a combination rate, 97 or 42.9 percent said they used
combination rates, while 124 newsnapers or 54.8 percent said
they did not. Five responses or 2.2 percent were not clear
and were excluded.

A slightly higher percentage of single-ownership
newspapers reported using combination rates than reported
using combination pages and sections. Five newspapers or
five percent of single ownership newspapers indicated they
sold advertising using combination rates, 95 or 94.l percent
said they did not, and one response was not clear and

eliminated. Groups consisting of two newspapers used the

25

method more often. Of the 43 responses from the smaller
group newspapers, 24 or 55.8 percent reported selling
advertising using a combination rate, while the remaining
42.2 percent said they did not.

Again, there were significant differences between
single-ownership newspapers, groups consisting of two
newspapers, and groups of three newspapers or more.

Case studies on the growth of specific groups discuss
at length some of the characteristics that helped made the
group successful. in his study of the Neighbor Newspapers,
inc. of suburban Atlanta, Georgia, Robert Kellis Kramer
describes how the group combined its 24 newspapers into
eight "units" which are basically the same newspaper with
different front pages:

Why bother to change the flag from edition to
edition? Simply because of the nebulous factor

called community identity. The pgcayllle Neighbgc
may be exactly the same as the Chamblge i

but it says Ooraville on the front, and that
should mean more to Doraville residents than if it
carried the name Chamblee or a name encompassing a
broader area, such as DeKalb County.(8)

The Neighbor newspapers also make use of combination
advertising extensively. "We have ten different retail ad
buys or an advertiser can buy the entire package," Otis
Brumby, Jr., publisher of the Neighbor Newspapers said in a
1976 interview with gdltgg and PublisheL. "We have many
accounts however, who (sic) we wouldn't want to advertise in
all of our newspapers since some of the reach would be
8. Robert Kellis Kramer, "A Case Study of Neighbor

Newspapers, Inc." (M.A. Thesis, University of Georgia,
1972) p. 99.

26
wasted. We constantly caution our salesmen not to
oversell."(9) One editorial employee of a suburban Detroit
weekly newspaper chain frankly admitted to doubts about the
rationale of combination pages when little content changed
from one newspaper to another. "Who is fooling who?" he
asked.

An important financial consideration in the use of
combination pages and sections is that putting out seven
newspapers which are the same with the exception of a few
pages is cheaper than putting out a single newspaper as
mentioned earlier. In head to head competition the
difference in cost could emerge as an important factor,

leaving the single-ownership newspaper at a disadvantage.

LFNGTH 0F Ol-iilERSiilP

A surprising figure in the study was the ownership
turnover rate. 0f the 226 newspapers in the study answering
the question on length of ownership, more than half, 53.6
percent to be exact, had changed hands during the past ten
years.

How many of these changes of ownership involved
group-owned newspapers? while as a whole more than half of

9. John Consoli, "Georgia Publisher Rides Suburban Atlanta

Have," Editg: and EublishEE, (August 21, 1976) p. 11.

27

TABLE 6

YEARS OWNED

 

 

Years present
Owner has had
Newspaper

Relative Cumulative
Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percentage Percentage

 

1 18 8.0 8.0
2 11 4.9 12.9
19 ' 8.4 21.3
20 - 8.8 30.1
16 7.1 37.2

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . 1"" 602 #502

3
b,
5
6......... ..... 4 1.8 39.0
7
8 3 1.3 46.5
9

00000000000000... 5 202 “'80?

H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
1...
1.5

4.9 53.6
1.3 54.9
0.9 55-8
1.3 . 57.1
0.9 58.0

1300000000000ooooo

14................
15 1.8 59.8
2.2 62.0
1.8 63.8
0.4 64.2

1.8 66.0
3'5 6905

16.000.00.00000000
18.000.00.000000000

(n e- t. c- kn c- no \» A) \»

 

 

 

 

28

TABLE 6--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

es . .

wn $33 MW 8:33:12. 82:32:27
Percentage Percentage

21.............. 1 0.4 69.0
23............... 2 0.9 70.8
25.............. 7 3.1 73.9
26.............. 1 0.4 74.3
27.............. 1 0.4 74.7
28.............. 3 1.3 76.0
29.............. 2 0.9 76.9
30.............. 3 1.3 78.2
j33.............. 1 0.9 78.6
34.............. 2 0.9 79.5
35.............. 1 0.4 79.9
36.............. 2 0.9 80.8
37.............. 1 0.4 81.2
40.............. 2 0.9 82.1
42............... 1 0.4 82.5
43.............. 1 0.4 82.9
45.............. 1 0.4 83.3
50 or more ..... 17 7.5 90.8
No Response 20 8.0 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

Note: All percentages rounded off to the nearest tenth.

29

the newspapers had changed hands during the ten year period,
only 35.3 percent of the single-ownership newspapers in the
study experienced a change of ownership during the same
period, or a total of 36 of the 102 single-ownership
newspapers responding to the question. Newspaper groups
consisting of two newspapers had a 54.5 percent turnover
rate during the ten year period, while groups consisting of
three or more newspapers experienced an even higher rate of
turnover. Of the newspapers in large group situations, the
survey revealed that 86.1 percent changed hands during the
ten year period.

Obviously, there has been a great deal of activity in
Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspaper ownership and
group-owned newspapers have played a large role in that
activity. The next question is how many of the newspapers
were previously owned by groups, and how many of the
newspapers were formerly in single-ownership situations.

A total of 53 newspapers or 23.5 percent were
previously owned by groups while 141 or 62.4 percent of the
newspapers were previously held in single-ownership
situations. In another 24 or 10.6 percent of the cases the
newspapers were still owned by the founding publisher or
firm. The remaining 3.5 percent represented no response or
garbled responses which were not usable.

A total of 11 or 10.8 percent of the newspapers now in
single-ownership were previously owned by groups. Another

77 or 75.5 percent of the newspapers were previously in

30

TABLE 7

PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP

 

 

 

 

. Relative Cumulative
ggizighip Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percentage Percentage
Group-owned 53 23.5 23.5
Single-ownership 141 62.4 85.9
Does not apply 24 10.6 96.5
No response 8 3.5 100.0
Total ‘ 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

31

single-ownership situations, and 12 or ll.8 percent were
still in the hands of the founding firm or publisher.

In the situation of groups consisting of two
newspapers, seven of the 44 newspapers were previously owned
by groups, or 15.9 percent. Among groups of three
newspapers or more, 35 or 44.3 percent of the 79 large group
newspapers reporting indicated they were previously in a
single-ownership situation, and two newspapers or 2.5
percent indicated they were still owned by the founding
publisher or publishing firm.

The figures indicate most of the newspapers sold have
followed the expected trend--into group ownership. From the
figures, it can be deduced that more newspapers are going
into group-ownership than are leaving it. When looking at
the length of ownership figures, another important figure
should be considered. A majority of the newspapers in
Michigan, 68.4 percent, or 154 of the 225 reported they were
more than 50-years old. Taking it a step further and
breaking the figures on newspapers less than 10-years old,
one finds groups owned 12 newspapers or 7.9 percent of the
total. Groups consisting of two newspapers numbered five or
ll.4 percent of the newspapers lO-years old or less, while
single-ownership newspapers numbered ll or 10.7 percent. At
the other end of the spectrum 79 or 77.5 percent of the
single-ownership newspapers were more than 50-years old,
compared to 32 or 72.5 percent of the newspapers in groups

of two, while 46 group-owned newspapers or 37.4 percent had

32

been in existence for more than 50 years.

The implication is that recently founded newspapers
are nearly as likely to be in group-ownership situations as
are newspapers in single-ownership situations. From the
figures it would appear the trend toward group-ownership is
occuring among older newspapers, and not just more recently
established newspapers.

The figures on the ages of newspapers reveal another
important finding. There has been no great rush to start
new newspapers in Michigan. That would tend to run against
some recent ideas that offset printing has made it easy to
get into the newspaper publishing business.

"Nowadays, almost anyone can start a newspaper. All
it takes is a typewriter, some volunteers and $200 or $300
to pay the printer. The trick is to keep on finding the
dollars and volunteers to stay in business," Emily Weston
Frankovich told readers of lug Natign.(10)

Dr. J. K. Hvistendahl put the price tag a little
higher:

It is possible today, however, to launch a
respectable weekly paper for no more than $25,000

in capital, mostly for photocomposing equipment,

electric typewriters, dark room equipment, and
light tables. And if those items are leased, the
expenditures may even be less. The grassroots
editor who neglects the needs of his readers and
advertisers, therefore can expect direct
competition. And it's going to be easier to
launch a new newspaper in the next quarter century

than it was in the last quarter century.(11)

10. Emily Heston Frankovich, "Small Voices of Diversity,"
Ihg Nation (April 20, 1974) p. 495.

33

TABLE 8

AGE OF NEWSPAPER

 

 

Age of
Newspaper
in Years

Frequency

Relative
Frequency
Percentage

Cumulative
Frequency
Percentage

 

2...............
3...............
4...............
5...............
6...............
9...............
10..............
12..............
13..............
14..............
15..............
20..............
22..............
25..............

280.000.00.00...

NHHNW-PHN

NUUHH

10

 

 

0.9
0.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
1.3
1.3
0.9
4.4
0.9
0.4
0.4

 

0.9
1.3
3.1
4.4
5.3
5.7
6.1
7.0
7.4
7.8
9.1

10.4'

11.3
15.7
16.6
17.0
17.4

 

34

TABLE 8--Continued

 

 

 

 

Age of Relative Cumulative

Newspaper Frequency Frequency Frequency
in Years Percentage Percentage
37............. 2 0.9 18.3
38.............. 4 1.8 20.1
41.............. 1 0.4 . 20.5
43............. 6 2.7 23.2
44............. 2 0.9 24.1
45.............. 1 0.4 24.5
46......m.... 1 0.4 24.9
More than 50 155 68.8 93.7
No response 14 6.2 100.0*
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

Notes All figures are rounded to the nearest tenth.

35

Given the idea that newspapers are easy and relatively
inexpensive to start, one would expect to find more new
newspapers than the study turned up. None of the
respondents said their newspaper was started in the last
year. Only two or 0.9 percent said their newspaper was
started in the last two years. A single newspaper or 0.4
percent reported it was founded in the last three years.
Four newspapers or 1.8 percent said they were four years
old, and three newspapers or 1.3 percent said they were five
years old. The figures reflect anything but a headlong rush
of persons jumping into the weekly and semi-weekly newspaper
business.

0f the 14 new newspapers in the survey that started
during the past ten years, five were single-ownership
newspapers, three were part of groups consisting of two
newspapers, and only two were part of groups of three or
more newspapers. Any growth of weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers is then occurring more among group-owned
newspapers than single-ownership newspapers. Coupled with
the finding that established newspapers when sold are more
likely to end up in group-ownership than single-ownership,
it becomes clear the trend is toward the group, instead of
the person interested in setting up a single-ownership
newspaper.

11. J. K. Hvistendahl, "Press Outlook Bright for

Community Newspapers," filfififiigglfi flitgc, 17(Summer 1976) p.
3.

36

PRINTING PROCESS AND CENTRAL PLANTS
The growth of the use of the offset press and central
plant may be one of the most important changes to the weekly
and semi-weekly newspaper field in the past few decades. It
was less than 20 years that the vast majority of grassroots
newspapers in Michigan were still using the letterpress
process and printing newspapers in their own shops. It is a
simple fact of life for most small newspapers that the price
of an offset press is out of the reach of their limited
resources for the small amount of work done on such a press.
The advantage would seem to go to the group which through
its combined resources can purchase and make more economical
use of the offset press. The answer for the
single-ownership newspaper was to let a central plant do the
work and avoid the large capital outlay for a new press, but
obtain some of the benefits groups enjoy through combined
use of equipment.
Centralized printing may be the major source
of economics realized by Neighbor Newspapers.
Instead of eight presses, one for each unit, the
Neighbors have only one press. Instead of eight
sets of composing equipment the Neighbors have
only one. They realize a savings in personnel as
well as machinery and they do not have to make
payments or pay rent on eight separate
buildings.(12)

In the case of seven weekly newspapers in Kentucky, a

co-op central plant was built that eventually evolved into a

12. Robert Kellis Kramer, "A Case Study of Neighbor
Newspapers, Inc." (H.A. Thesis, University of Georgia,
1972) p. 10“.

37

TABLE 9

CENTRAL PLANT USAGE

 

 

 

 

gential Relative Cumulative
P ant.n Frequency Frequency Frequency
Urln l g Percentage Percentage
sage
- Yes 199 88.1 88.1
No 27 11.9 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

38

newspaper group in less than 10 years.(13) A number of
respondents to the survey made marginal notes on the survey
form indicating the central plant they used was only
partially owned by their publisher or publishing firm.
Their responses were included with the newspapers reporting
their newspapers owned the entire central plant.

Of the 226 responses to the questions on whether the
newspaper is printed in a central plant, 199 or 88.1 percent
of all newspapers reporting said they did use such a
facility printing two or more newspapers. Only 27 or 11.9
percent of the respondents said they did not use a central
plant.

Asked whether their newspaper owned the central plant,
99 of the 226 newspapers responding, or uh.8 percent,
indicated the plant was at least partially owned by their
publisher or publishing firm. Clearly, many newspapers in
Michigan do not own a press, or at least the press on which
their newspaper is printed.

Of the newspapers in single-ownership, 78 or 76.5
percent said they used a central plant. Only 2h or 23.5
percent of the single-ownership newspapers reported doing
their own printing for just their newspaper. Groups
consisting of two newspapers reported that hl or 93.2
13. Nancy Shook Huck, "Newspapers, Inc.: The Impact of

Corporate Ownership on its Community Newspapers," (M.S.
Thesis, Murray State University, 1972) p. 9.

39

percent of their number used a central plant, while three or
6.8 percent did not. Every newspaper in a group of three
newspapers or more used a centralized printing plant.

Of the 82 newspapers responding to a question on
whether or not the publisher or publishing firm owned the
central plant where their newspaper was published, only 25
or 30.5 percent of the newspapers in single-ownership
answered affirmatively, while 57 or 69.5 percent said they
took their newspaper to an outside firm to be printed.

Groups consisting of two newspapers showed a higher
percentage of ownership of the central plants where their
newspapers are printed. Seventeen of the bl newspapers
using a central plant or u1.5 percent said they owned at
least part of the plant. The remaining 2h newspapers or
58.5 percent said they took their newspapers to another
firm's central plant to be printed.

For groups of three newspapers or more, 56 of the 72
newspapers or 71.h percent indicated they used plants of
which they owned at least a portion. The remaining 16
newspapers or 28.6 percent indicated they took their
newspaper to an outside firm to be printed.

The trend in the statistics indicates the larger the
group, the more likely it will own the press on which its
newspapers are printed.

The trend in the survey results also clearly indicates
the larger the newspaper, the more likely it will own the

centralized printing plant where it is printed. A number of

no

TABLE 10

CENTRAL PLANT OWNERSHIP

 

 

 

 

geptfifii Relative Cumulative

Piagt g Frequency Frequency Frequency

Ownership Percentage Percentage
Yes 99 #3.8 #3.8
NO 103 as. 6 89»
Does not apply 23 10.2 100.0,
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

Note: All figures rounded to the nearest tenth.

91

TABLE 11

NEWSPAPER PRINTING PROCESS

 

 

 

 

Type of Relative Cumulative
Printing Process Frequency Frequency Frequency
Used Percentage Percentage
Letterpress 23 10.2 10.2
Photo composition 198 87.6 97.8
Other u 1.8 99.6
No response 1 0.9 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

42

newspapers with their own offset printing facilities will
also take in other job printing, including other newspapers.
That would mean an added source of income for the firm with
the printing press, which in most cases means a group.
According to a survey by the National Newspaper Association,
central plant operations as Opposed to newspapers which rely
on other firms for their printing, can on the average be
expected to have a higher average net income. Newspapers
doing in-house presswork in the NNA study averaged $310,757,
while newspapers doing just their own printing in-house
averaged $h90,20h. These figures should be used with the
consideration of the limitations of the NNA survey mentioned
earlier in this study.

The NHA considered newspapers using in-house
facilities as the firms that have their presswork and/or
negatives and plates produced in their own plant, while
central plant operations were considered to be those
operations which produced their own and other
publications.(1h)

"In some instances there was no clear cut dividing
line as, for example, the company which sent its own
newspapers to a central plant, but accepted other
publications which it printed on its job presses," the
reported stated.(15)
1h. National Newspaper Association, ;9___ flggkly New spapg:

_Q§L‘§LQQ1,(NaShington, D. C., 1976) p. h, 6, .
15. Ibid., p. h.

43

it should be mentioned that in the NNA report the
average income was higher for central plants operation than
in-house operation, regardless of the circulation range
considered.

Using another sampling technique, Gerald C. Stone
validated the findings of the NNA in his dissertation
"Management of Resources in Community-Sized Newspapers."
Stone's extensive questionnaire took into consideration
earlier studies including the NNA's, which have been done
annually for the past 25 years.

Looking at the survey of Michigan weekly newspapers
and putting it along side of the NNA study, it becomes
apparent that groups may be enjoying a strong financial
advantage through the ownership of the majority of
centralized printing plants. , The link though is far from
perfect and more information is needed to make it more than
an assumption.

Another question the survey explored was the form in
which the newspapers were taken to the central plant. The
more sophisticated the equipment the newspaper has in its
office, the higher the level of investment in the newspaper,
and the less dependent the newspaper is on the central plant
for services. The amount of investment in typesetting
equipment, and other graphic equipment may indicate the
relative strength of the newspaper.

Newspapers were asked if they went to the central

plant with the copy not yet typeset and pasted up, with the

99

TABLE 12

FORM TAKEN TO CENTRAL PLANT

 

 

 

Form Taken to Relative Cumulative
Central Printing Frequency Frequency Frequency
Plant Percentage Percentage
Not Yet Typeset 23 10.2 10.2
Camera Ready 99 93.8 59.0
Negative Shot 27 11.9 65.9
Plates Prepared 10 9.9 70.3
Does Not Apply. I 65 28.8 99.1

No Response 2 0.9 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

45

negative already shot, camera ready, or with the plate
already burned. Alternative responses were included for
newspapers which did not use a central plant or had a press
in-house (does not apply).

A newspaper that took its copy to a central plant not
yet typeset would not have as much money tied up in
typesetting equipment, newspapers going to the central plant
camera ready would have some investment in typesetting
equipment, newspapers taking a negative to the central plant
would have an investment in both camera equipment and
typesetting equipment, while newspapers taking their plates
to the central plant would have all of the equipment to
publish a newspaper except the press itself. The press is
the largest equipment investment a newspaper can make in
most cases.

Of the 226 newspapers responding to the question, 23
or 10.2 percent indicated the newspaper was taken to the
central plant not yet typeset. A total of 99 newspapers or
93.8 percent reported they took the newspaper to a central
printing plant camera ready, another 27 or 11.9 percent
indicated the newspaper went to the plant with the negative
shot, 10 or 9.9 percent indicated the plate was burned
before the newspaper was taken to the central plant. The
question did not apply to 65 or 28.8 percent of the
newspapers, and two responses were not clear and could not
be classified.

Of the 225 newspapers included in the comparison of

96

group size to what form the newspaper was taken to the
central plant in, only three single-ownership newspapers or
2.9 percent of the 102 newspapers analyzed in
single-ownership were taken to the central plant not yet
typeset, 95 or 99.l percent were taken to the central plant
camera ready, 15 or 19.7 percent were taken to the central
plant with the negative already shot, and seven newspapers
or 6.9 percent were taken to the central plant with the
plate already burned. The question did not apply to 31 or
30.9 percent of the single-ownership respondents, and one
single-ownership response was garbled and could not be
classified.

Comparing the single-ownership newspapers to the study
as a whole on whether or not the newspaper was taken to a
central plant, some differences are evident. Only 2.9
percent of the responding single-ownership newspapers as
compared to 10.2 percent of the newspapers in the study as a
whole were taken to the central printing plant not yet
typeset. The percentage of newspapers in single-ownership
going to the central plant camera ready, 99.1 percent, was
nearly identical to the study as a whole, 93.8 percent. A
slightly higher percentage of single-ownership newspapers,
19.7 percent, were taken to the central plant with the
negative already shot as compared to 11.9 percent of the
newspapers in the study overall, and a comparable percentage
of single-ownership newspapers, 6.9 percent to 9.9 percent

of the newspapers in the study as a whole, went to the

97

central plant with the plates already burned.

in groups consisting of two newspapers, three or 6.8
percent of the newspapers are taken to the central plant not
yet typeset, a figure lower than the 10.2 percent in the
study as a whole. A total of 22 newspapers or 50 percent
are taken to the central plant camera ready, a figure
comparable to all newspapers in the study as a whole. Small
group newspapers taken to the plant with the negative
already shot numbered seven or 15.9 percent, higher than the
11.9 percent for the entire study. The number of small
group newspapers going to the central plant with the plates
already burned was only two or 9.5 percent, almost exactly
the same as the 9.9 percent for the study as a whole.

For groups of three newspapers or more, 17 or 15.2
percent of the newspapers were taken to the central printing
plant not yet typeset, above the 10.2 percent for the study
as a whole. Thirty-two newspapers or 90.5 percent of the
newspapers were taken to a centralized printing plant camera
ready, slightly lower than the 93.8 percent of the
newspapers in the study as a whole. A total of four
newspapers or five percent of the newspapers in the large
group situation were taken to the central printing plant
with the plate already prepared, below the 15.9 percent for
the study as a whole. Only one or 1.2 percent reported
taking an already prepared plate to the central plant, below
the 9.9 percent for the study as a whole. One response for

groups of three newspapers or more was unintelligible and

98

could not be classified.

While many of the newspapers in the study did not
choose to own a press, many have, according to the study,
chosen to invest in typesetting equipment, with a strong
preference toward having the newspaper camera ready before
taking to the central printing plant. While groups tended
to own the central plants they used, the newspapers in
groups using a central plant, but not owning one, did not
differ significantly in the form they went to the printing
plant. That would tend to support the findings of a 1973
study by Odalie Karen Kromp on the use of computerized
typesetting equipment by weekly newspapers. She found the
usage of computerized typesetting equipment did not tend to

be in any particular type of office or location.(16)

iS THE EDITOR THE OWNER?

Traditionally,‘ the typical weekly newspaper in the
United States has combined the roles of editor and publisher
in a rural setting, many times with the wife also working on
the newspaper. The survey indicated that situation does not
exist on the average weekly and semi-weekly newspaper in
Michigan today. As expected, the traditional role of the
publisher-editor has continued among single-ownership
16. Odalie Karen Kromp, "The Computerization of Georgia's

Weekly Newspapers and Evaluations of Specific Equipment,"
(M.A. Thesis , University of Georgia, 1973) p. 57.

99

newspapers, although it is not the norm for group-owned
newspapers. Part of the reason is that owners of large
newspaper groups quite obviously cannot be editing all of
their newspapers at the same time.

Of the 226 newspapers responding to the question on
whether the editor was owner of the newspaper, 116 or 5l.3
percent of the newspapers said the owner of the newspaper
was also the editor of the newspaper. In 107 or 97.3
percent of the cases, the respondent said the editor was
someone hired by the publisher or publishing firm.

Of the 101 responding single-ownership newspapers, 21
or 20.8 percent of the newspapers indicated the editor of
the newspaper was someone other than the publisher. An
overwhelming majority of the newspapers, 79 or 78.2 percent,
indicated the owner of the newspaper was also the editor.
One response identified as from a single-ownership newspaper
was unintelligible and discarded. .

The figures were much different for groups consisting
of two newspapers, although a majority of the newspapers
were still edited by the owners, and 19 or 93.2 percent were
edited by a person hired by the owner of the newspaper. The
figure would indicate that some publishers in small group
situations are editing more than one newspaper.

in groups of three newspapers or more, the figure for
someone other than the publisher editing the newspaper jumps
again. Of the 98 newspapers in the crosstabulation, 35 or

71.9 percent had editors who were not the owners. Twelve or

50

TABLE 13

CCKBINED EDITOR-OWNER ROLE

 

 

 

 

Is the Editor Relative Cumulative
the Owner Frequency Frequency Frequency
of the Newspaper Percentage Percentage
Yes 116 51.3 51-3
No 107 07.3 98.6
No Response 3 1.3 100.0*
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

*Note: All figures rounded to the nearest tenth.

51

2h.5 percent of the newspapers responding had editors who
were the owners.

It could be expected that since traditionally the
editor-publisher format was found in rural communities, a
larger share of the rural newspapers would still have
editors who are also publishers. In all, 29 or 25.2 percent
of the urban or suburban newspapers indicated the editor was
also the owner of the newspaper, while 86 or 7h.8 percent of
the rural newspapers had editor-publishers. Two responses
were discarded because they were unintelligible.

Looking at the other side of the figures, 65 or 60.7
percent of the responding newspapers that hired an editor
were in urban or suburban areas, while h2 or 39.3 percent of
the newspapers with an editor not the owner were in rural
areas. The figures tend to suport the idea that rural
newspapers are more likely to continue with the traditional
owner-editor concept than are suburban or urban newspapers.
Since large groups tend to be found in urban or suburban
areas, group-ownership may be related to the high percentage
of owner-editors in metropolitan areas.

Another factor to be explored when considering the
owner-publisher or non-owner editor question is the
circulation of the newspaper. Since groups tend to be more
likely to have higher average circulations than
single-ownership newspapers, it would be expected that
newspapers with larger circulations would be more likely to

have editors hired by the owner or owners of the newspaper,

.—

52

while the newspapers with lower circulations would be more
likely to have editor-publishers.

It was found that of the 116 newspapers with the
publisher serving as editor, 73 of the newspapers or 62.9
percent had circulations of 3,000 or less, while #3 or 37.1
percent of the newspapers had circulations of 3,001 or more.
Among the newspapers with hired editors, 30 or 28.1 percent
had circulations of less than 3,000, while 77 or 71.9
percent of the newspapers had circulations of 3,00l or more.

Survey results tended then to be as expected, with
groups, higher circulation newspapers and weeklies in
metropolitan areas all tending to have as editors, persons
hired by the owners of the newspapers, while the opposite
held true for non-group, rural, lower circulation
newspapers. As with most of the survey questions, groups
consisting of two newspapers fell somewhere in between the

larger group and single-ownership situation.

STAFF SIZE
In terms of what type of service a newspaper provides
its readers, staff size is vital. The more persons on a
staff, the more likly a story will be covered. Of course
staff size is meaningless if the entire staff is untrained
or simply incompetent, but it does give an indication of the

newspaper's resources and commitment to service.

53

TABLE 14

STAFF SIZE

 

 

 

 

Relative I Cumulative
Staff Size Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percentage Percentage
1... ......... 26 11.5 11.5
2 ............ 91 18.1 29.6
3.... ..... ... 38 16.8 96.9
9 ..... . ...... 39 17.3 63.7
5............ 20 8.8 72.5
6.... ........ 12 5.3 77.8
7..... ..... .. 17 7.5 85.3
8 ............ 6 2.7 88.0
9 ............ 3 1.3 89.3
10.. . . ..... 2 0.9 90.2
11.. . . 1 0.4 90.6
12 . .. 7 3-1 93-7
13 ....... . 2 0.9 99.6
14.... ....... 1 0.1+ 95.0
17 ... . . 2 0.9 95-9
21.... ....... 1 0.9 96.3
26 .... ...... 2 0.9 97.2
39... ........ 1 0.4 97.6
No Response 5 2.2 100.0*
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note: Percentages rounded off to the nearest tenth.

59

The question on staff size in the study had its
problems. It is extremely difficult to define what a
newsperson on a weekly newspaper is since it is common on
smaller newspapers for one person to serve in several
capacities. The objective of the question in the study was
intended to gauge the number of voices on the newspaper,
rather than to determine the number of full-time and
part-time newsroom employees.

There was no single staff size that seemed to dominate
the responses. The single largest grouping was two staff
members, a number that #1 or 18.1 percent of the responding
newspapers gave on their survey form. The next response in
frequency was four staff members with 39 or 17.3 percent of
newspapers, 38 of the newspapers or 16.8 percent said they
had three staff members. Another 26 newspapers or 11.5
percent of the respondents indicated only one person made up
the news staff of the paper. None of the remaining staff
sizes indicated exceeded 8.8 percent.

Of the 102 single-ownership newspapers reSponding to
the question, the largest single number of responses came
from newspapers indicating they had two staff members.
Twenty-four newspapers or 23.5 percent of the
single-ownership newspapers indicated they had two staff
members. Newspapers in single-ownership with three staff
members numbered 20 or 19.6 percent, and 15 newspapers said
they had four staff members or 1h.7 percent. The average

number of staff members for the single-ownership newspapers

55

was 9.2.

For groups consisting of two newspapers, the largest
single group of responses came from 11 of the nu newspapers
or 25 percent reporting they had four people on their news
staffs, while nine or 20.5 percent reported they had two
staff members, seven or 15.9 percent said they had one staff
member, six or 13.6 percent said they had three staff
members, and four or 9.1 percent said they had five persons
on their news staff. The average number of staff members on
each newspaper was 8.6.

Groups of more than three newspapers averaged 5.1
staff members. 0f the 79 newspapers responding to the
question, 13 or 16.5 percent indicated they had four staff
members, 12 or 15.9 percent reported they had three staff
members, 11 or 13.9 percent said they had one member, eight
or 10.1 percent indicated they had two staff members, eight
or 10.1 percent reported they had seven staff members, seven
or 8.9 percent reSponded they had five staff members and
seven or 8.9 percent indicated they had 12 staff members.

The biggest problem with the figures on staff size was
that a few newspapers included stringers or correspondents,
and some had many correspondents or stringers. While the
figures seem to indicate groups on the average have larger
staffs, the results must be treated as less than conclusive.
It should also be mentioned that several large groups may

use the same person for more than one newspaper.

56
PAGES

Another important area of comparison was the number of
pages a group versus non-group newspaper is publishing.
Since all of the previous characteristics have leaned toward
a picture of the Michigan group-owned newspaper as in a
stronger position than the non-group newspaper it would be
expected that groups would on the average have more pages.

The number of pages of course could not be simply
averaged. Many newspapers in Michigan are broadsheet, but a
number use a tabloid format. Of the 226 responding
newspapers on the question of whether they used a broadsheet
or tabloid format, 82 or 36.8 percent reported they were
tabloid and 1u2 or 62.8 percent used a broadsheet format.
Since the typical page of a tabloid newspaper is about half
the size of a broadsheet newspaper, the number of tabloid
pages in a newspaper was divided by two. The result was
that the number of pages between all the newspapers in the
study could be compared, although a number of the responses
on the average number of pages from tabloids translated to
an odd number.

For the study as a whole, 50 percent of the newspapers
reported they averaged 11 pages or less. The largest single
number of pages, 3h, or 15 percent of the 226 newspapers
answering the question reported they averaged 10 pages.
Looking at the graph it becomes apparent that the average
number of pages varies widely, by far the vast majority of

newspapers average less than 25 pages a week. Semi-weekly

57

TABLE 15

FORMAT OF NEWSPAPERS

 

 

 

 

F0 m ,6 er Relative Cumulative
N a 3 Frequency Frequency Frequency
8 spapers Percentage Percentage
Tabloid 82 36.3 36.3
Broadsheet 192 62.8 99.1
No Response 2 0.9 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

58

newspapers in the study gave the sum of the pages they
averaged for both newspapers each week, and many of those
are reflected in the classification of newspapers with more
than 25 pages each week.

One of the facts of life for most newspapers is that
the number of inches of advertising is closely related to
the number of pages the newspaper publishes each week. Take
the Horenci Observer as an example. To publish eight pages
each week the newspaper must sell 800 inches of advertising
at an average of $1.25 an inch, 1,000 inches to reach 10
pages, 1,200 inches to reach 12 pages, and 1,000 inches to
reach lh pages.

While the needed revenue to reach a certain number of
pages from newspaper to newspaper may vary depending on
expenses, advertising expenses, and other matters, the
number of inches reflects the newspaper's income, and the
income is reflected in the number of pages the newspaper
averages each week. The larger the newspaper the more the
revenue. The number of pages should then be a powerful
indicator of just how strong a newspaper is.

Of the 102 single-ownership newspapers included in a
crosstabulation between ownership type and the number of
pages published on the average, it was found that 69.7
percent of the newspapers average 11 pages or less, while as
a whole just 50 percent of the newSpapers averaged that
number of pages.

The largest share of the single-ownership newspapers,

59

TABLE 16

AVERAGE NUMBER OF PAGES

 

 

 

 

Average Relative Cumulative
Number Frequency Frequency Frequency
of rages Percentage Percentage
1.. . .......... 0.4 0.4
2.. ...... . 0.4 0.8
3 ............... 0.9 1.7
4 ......... . . 17 7.5 9.2
5 ..... . ......... 5 2.2 11.4
6 ............... 11 4.9 16.3
7.. . .......... ‘1 0.4 16.7
8.. ............. 30 13.3 30.0
9... . . 6 2.7 32.7
10.. ....... . 34 15.0 47.7
11 ...... ... ..... 2 0.8 48.5
12.. . ...... 11 4.9 53.4
13 ........ . 23 10.2 63.6
14 .............. 13 5.8 69.4
16 ........ . ..... 12 5.3 74.7
18 .............. 4 1.8 76.5
20 ........ . 9 4.0 80.5
22 ............. a 1.8 82.3
24... . ........ 7 3.1 85.4
26 ..... .. ....... 30 13.3 98.7
No Response 3 1.3 100.0
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

60

27 in all, or 26.5 percent, indicated they averaged 10 pages
each week. Only three newspapers or 2.9 percent of the
single ownership newspapers reported they averaged more than
25 pages each week. Generally, there were a broad range of
responses from single-ownership newspapers as the graph
indicates.

Of the groups consisting of two newspapers only 47.7
percent reported they averaged 11 pages or less, slightly
less than the overall average of 50 percent of the
newspapers with 11 pages or less. The largest single
grouping of the newspapers was the 11 or 25 percent
reporting they averaged 13 pages. None of the newspapers in
this type of ownership indicated they published more than 25
pages on the average.

Groups of three or more newspapers had a much higher
average number of pages than either single-ownership
newspapers or groups consisting of just two newspapers.
Only 30 percent of the large group newspapers reported
averaging 11 pages or less, far below the levels of the
types of ownership of the overall average of newspapers
averaging 11 pages or less. The 50 percent mark was not
reached for large group newspapers until the number of pages
reached 16. In all, 52.5 percent of the large group
newspapers reported they average 16 pages or less. A total
of 23 newspapers in large group situations or 28.8 percent
reported they averaged 25 pages or more.

Again the survey reveals that group-owned newspapers

61

occupy a stronger position. Group newspapers average more
pages than either the smaller groups consisting of just two
newspapers or single-ownership newspapers. Groups
consisting of two newspapers also again differed from either

the larger groups or single-ownership newspapers.

MFTHOD OF DELIVERY

As postage rates have climbed in recent years, some
publishers have been deciding to find alternative methods of
delivery. The survey indicated that a large number of the
respondents are already using other methods to get their
newspapers to readers, although an overwhelming majority
also still use the U.S. Postal Service.

Of the 226 newspapers responding to the question on
what delivery method was used, 8h.1 percent indicated they
used a second class mailing permit. But the study indicated
that newspapers are using a number of methods of delivery.

A large number of newspapers in the study reported
they were making use of controlled circulation mail or third
class mail. This type of delivery provides for 100 percent
coverage of the circulation territory but brings in no
subscription revenues. The cost of these post office
methods of delivery are substantially higher than second
class mail. Respondents from 1h newspapers or 6.2 percent

of the total in the study indicated they used a third class

62

TABLE 17

DELIVERY METHODS

 

 

 

323:3? £33332. £22322?
Percentage Percentage
Second Class 190 15.9 ----
Controlled Ciro. 17 7.5 ----
Third Class 14 6.2 ----
Carrier 72 31.9 ----
Newsstand 150 66.h ----
Other Methods 20 8.8 ----

Total

 

 

 

 

 

63

mailing permit, and 17 or 7.5 percent repported they used a
controlled circulation mailing permit.

One of the more interesting findings of the study was
the number of newspapers reporting they used news carriers
or motor carriers. Typically, the use of news carriers or
motor carriers means a saving in delivery costs. Using the
Morenci Observer again as an example, when the newspaper
changed from delivering all of its h,200 newspapers by third
class mail to news carriers and motor carriers it
immediately cut its costs of delivery per unit from 7.5
cents a newspaper to five cents per newspaper for newspapers
delivered in the market area. Newspapers mailed outside of
the market area, about #00, remained under the third class
permit. Over a one year period the change would mean a
savings of $h,9h0, as circulation costs dropped from $15,380
under the system of mailing all of the newspapers under the
third class permit to $11,hh0 a year under the use of a
combination of third class and carriers.

Kramer attributed a portion of the success of the
Neighbor Newspapers in suburban Atlanta to the use of
carriers. Faced with rising postage costs the group
switched to a voluntary pay system using carriers to give
advertisers saturation coverage.(17)

In all, 72 respondents or 31.9 percent of all, of the
newspapers in the study indicated they were using new
17. Robert Kellis Kramer, "A Case Study of Neighbor

Newspapers, Inc." (N.A. Thesis, University of Georgia,
1972) p. 8h.

614

carriers and/or motor carriers.

As expected a fairly high number of newspapers also
said they used newsstand sales, 150 or 66.h percent of the
respondents. A total of 20 newspapers said they used other
methods of delivery.

Breaking down the figures into group and non-group
ownership, the study indicates group-owned newspapers are
much more likely to make use of delivery methods other than
second class mail. Eighty-seven of the 102 responding
single-ownership newspapers or 85.3 percent indicated they
used second class mail. The figure was slightly higher than
the study as a whole.

Newspapers in groups consisting of just two newspapers
dropped slightly below the overall percentage for the study,
with 35 of an or 79.5 percent reporting they used second
class mail as a method to deliver their newspapers.

The percentage of groups of more than three newspapers
nearly identical to the overall study reported they were
using a second class mailing permit. Sixty-seven of the 79
responding newspapers or 8h.3 percent as compared to the
overall percentage of 8h.1 percent reported they used a
second class permit.

Single ownership newspapers also came close to the
overall average in the use of third class mail. Seven of
the 102 single-ownership newspapers in the study or 6.9
percent reported they used a third class mailing permit.

Overall 6.2 percent of the newspapers said they used a third

65

class permit. Single ownership newspapers were higher than
the study as a whole for respondents indicating they used
controlled circulation mail. Six of the 102 newspapers in
single-ownership or 5.9 percent said they used controlled
circulation mail, lower than the overall rate of 7.5
percent.

Groups consisting of two newspapers were slightly
higher in number than the average for the study in
controlled circulation situations. Six or 13.6 percent of
the nu newspapers in groups consisting of two newspapers
reported using controlled circulation mail. Four of the hk
newspapers or 9.1 percent reported using third class mail.
Both percentages are based on a relatively low number of
newspapers in comparison to the entire survey size.

Differences are more striking among ownership types
when the use of carriers is examined. Single ownership
newspapers used carriers far less than either newspapers in
groups consisting of two newspapers or large groups on a
percentage basis.

Single ownership newspapers reported that only 13 or
12.7 percent of the 102 reporting said they used carriers.
The percentage for groups consisting of two newspapers grew
to 29.5 percent or 13 of the nu newspapers reporting. Of
newspapers in groups of three or more newspapers, hS or 60
percent of the 79 newspapers said they used carriers to
deliver their newspapers.

All of the percentages for newspapers using newsstand

66

as one of their methods of delivery were high, although
large group owned newspapers reported using newsstands at a
higher rate than either single-ownership or groups
consisting of two newspapers. Single ownership newspapers
reported 63 of 102 or 61.8 percent of their number used
newsstands. Groups consisting of two newspapers reported 28
of an or 63.6 percent used newsstands, and 58 of 79 large
group newspapers or 73.h percent reported using newsstands
as a method of delivery.

Single ownership newspapers reporting using "other"
methods totalled seven or 6.9 percent, groups consisting of
two newspapers totalled six or 13.6 percent, and seven or
8.9 percent of the large group newspapers said they used
"other" methods of delivery. There was no breakdown of
other methods of delivery.

The figures for methods of delivery show little
difference between group and non-group ownership except for
the figures on carrier-delivered newspapers, and to a lesser
degree a larger percentage using newsstands. it is the
difference between group and non-group newspapers that is
interesting. The difference indicates that many more group
newspapers are utilizing the money saving technique of
carrier delivery, but that may not be the only reason for
the use of carrier delivery. Carrier delivery is also an
easy way, and an inexpensive way, for free newspapers to
deliver. Since free newspapers cannot meet postal

guidelines for second class delivery, they must use either

67

third class or controlled circulation permits if their
newspapers are to travel through the mail. As in the case
of the Morenci Observer the difference in cost between
carrier-delivered newspapers and the U.S. Postal Service
can be substantial.

Sim wrote about free circulation:

It is the distribution problem which compels
many suburban and community (neighborhood) papers
to free distribution or controlled (voluntary)
circulation plans. In order to put advertising
rates at a level which is essential in the absence
of any substantial revenue from circulation, the
publisher must offer the advertisers saturation,
or at least large circulation. It becomes more
efficient and therefore relatively cheaper to have
carriers deliver to every household rather than to
lists of customers on routes. The mails may serve
just as an auxiliary system where it is
impractical to use carriers.(18)

Of the 258 neWSpapers in the Michigan Newspaper
Directory and Ratebook, 17 or 6.6 percent list their figures
as being supplied by the publisher of a free circulation
newspaper. Some publishers with free or voluntary pay
circulation policies such as Observer/Eccentric Newspapers
use audited circulation and did not appear in the ratebook
as free circulation newspapers.

With postage rates increasing sharply over the past
few years, it would be expected that many publishers would
be ready to abandon mail service for some other method of
delivery. That was not the case. When asked if they
intended to change their method of delivery, the vast

majority of newspapers, 1h7 of the responding newspapers or

18. Sim, The Grassrgots Prgss: Ameciga'g Pgmmunlty
N,! , p. 157.

68

TABLE 18

CONSIDERING DELIVERY CHANGE

 

 

 

 

Considering Relative Cumulative
Delivery Frequency Frequency Frequency
Change Percentage Percentage
Yes 20 10.6 10.6
No 1N7 65.0 75.6
Does Not Apply 36 15.9 91-5
No Response 19 8.4 100.0*
Total 226 100.0

 

 

 

 

*Note: All percentages rounded to the nearest tenth.

69

65 percent said they had no plans for changing their method
of delivery. The reason may he that in the past few years
of sharply rising postal rates, the newspapers most likely
to change have already made their move. In the other
responses 36 or 15.9 percent of the newspapers said the
question did not apply to them, and 2h or 10.6 percent of
the newspapers said they were considering changing their
method of delivery. Another 19 or 8.h percent of the
newspapers gave unintelligible responses which could not be
classified.

"The worst prospect for weeklies is that in-county
postal rates may climb so steeply that they will be forced
to start their own rural distribution system, but this is
not likely to occur unless the postal service completely
abandons what used to be called in happier days, 'rural free
delivery,'" Hvistendahl wrote in glasjrggjs Edi:g[.(19)

As the cost of delivery continues to rise, more
newspapers may take a look at the practicality of using
carriers. It is significant that use of carriers is higher
among group-owned newspapers in the study than among

single-ownership newspapers.

19. Hvistendahl, "Press Outlook Bright for Community
Newspapers," p. h.

7O

COHPETITIOH

If the response from the survey is any indication,
competition is a fact of life for Michigan weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers in the survey. There can be more
than one meaning to the term competition, but in this
section, competition refers to the scramble for dollars not
news. Since it has been widely assumed that there are few
places left with more than one newspaper, it would also be
expected that few reSpondents to the survey would indicate
other weekly and semi-weekly newspapers as among their
strongest source of competition. It did not work out that
way.

Of the newspapers saying they faced strong competition
from other weekly newspapers, a large number of them were
group-owned. Thirty-four of the 63 were in groups of three
newspapers or more. Another seven newspapers or 11.1
percent were in groups consisting of two newspapers. Only
16 newspapers in single ownership said they faced strong
competition from weekly newspapers.

Still weekly newspapers were not the most frequently
cited source of strong competition. By a large margin
shoppers were called the strongest source of competition
from the responding newspapers. Of the 226 responding
newspapers, 112 or h9.6 percent reported shOppers were among
their strongest sources of competition. Shoppers were cited
more frequently by single-ownership newspapers than by

group-owned newspapers.

71

Of 102 newspapers in single-ownership responding, 63
or 61.8 percent, said they faced strong competition from
shoppers. Groups consisting of two newspapers reported a
slightly lower total, 26 of an or 59.1 percent. Groups of
three newspapers or more reported that shoppers were a
source of strong competition much less frequently. Only 23
of 79 or 29.1 percent of the large group newspapers said
they faced strong competition from shoppers.

The differences between large groups and smaller
groups and single-ownership newspapers facing strong
competition is large although the reasons are not clear.
One possible answer is that since most single-ownership
newspapers in the study are_ in rural areas and most
group-owned newspapers are in metrOpolitan areas, shoppers
may tend to be in rural areas of the state.

Another apparent source of strong competition for
weekly and semi-weekly newspapers in the study are daily
newspapers. Responding newspapers cited daily newspapers 6h
times as a strong competitor in their areas, or 28.3 percent
of the total.

Single-ownership newspapers were well below the
average percentage of the study as a whole in citing daily
newspapers as a source of strong competition. Of the 102
single-ownership newpapers in the cross-tabulation, only 20
or 19.6 percent reported radio stations were strong
competitors.

Groups consisting of just two newspapers were well

72

 

 

 

 

TABLE 19
COMPETITION
Relative Cumulative
Source of
. . Frequency Frequency Frequency
Competition Percentage Percentage
Shopper 112 #9.6 ---
Radio Station 26 11.5 -__
Weekly Newspaper 63 27.9 ---
Daily Newspaper 6h 28.3 ---
Television 2 0.9 ---
Other 1 0.9 ---
Total --- ---- ---

 

 

 

 

73

above the study as a whole in reporting that radio stations
posed strong competition. They cited radio stations 1h
times for 31.8 percent of the an responding newspapers in
the small group classification.

Newspapers in groups of three or more reported even
more frequently that radio stations were sources of strong
competition with 30 of the 79 large group newspapers or no
percent indicating that they faced strong competition from
daily newspapers.

The reason for the higher percentage of large group
newspapers reporting they faced strong competition may be
related to the earlier survey finding that most of the
newspapers in the study are in group-ownership and that all
metrOpolitan areas of Michigan without fail have a daily
newspaper. 0n the other hand most daily newspapers probably
do not offer a threat to the advertising base of weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers in small towns across the state.

Radio stations were reported as a strong source of
competition by 26 or 11.5 percent of the newspapers in the
survey.

A percentage of single-ownership newspapers comparable
to the study as a whole 12 or 11.8 percent of the 102
responding indicated that radio stations provided strong
competition. Groups consisting of two newspapers were below
the study as a whole in the percentage reporting that they
faced strong competition from radio stations. The figure

jumped to 13.9 percent or 11 of the 79 large group

7a

newspapers, higher than the study as a whole.

The figures show no strong differences between the
different types of ownership and the percentage as a whole
was rather low.

Perhaps not at all surprising is that only two
newspapers cited television as a strong source of
competition. Only two newspapers, both of them in groups of
larger than three newspapers reported facing strong
competition from television stations.

A single newspaper owned by a group consisting of two
newspapers said it faced strong competition from an
unspecified source.

Looking at the question of competition from all of the
sources taken together, single-ownership newspapers reported
facing their strongest competition from shOppers, the most
cited source of competition in the study as a whole.
Large-group newspapers reported weekly newspapers and daily
newspapers as their strongest sources of competition.

Newspapers in the study also cited radio stations and
television stations as sources of competition , although not
in large numbers.

The competition factor has not disappeared from weekly
and semi-weekly newspaper publishing if the study is any
indication. The problem for single-ownership newspapers may
not be as much from encroachment of group-owned newspapers
as it is from shoppers sapping off financial strength. Many

of the group-owned newspapers which are centered for the

75

most part in metropolitan areas are squaring off with other
weeklies and daily newspapers.

Sim pointed out that growth of business beyond the
suburbs into small towns does not necessarily mean a bonanza
for community newspaper publishers.

The extension "beyond the suburbs" suggested
by Mr. Kohn brings many shopping centers into or
adjacent to small towns. Does that not then
guarantee a good advertising volume for the small
town publisher? Not necessarily; in fact, rather
seldom. These Operations are predicated on mass
volume; they handle their advertising in the same
way. They want saturation coverage of even in its
own field.(20)

Sim points out that shoppers then fill the void.

The next section of the study will attempt to pull
together the survey results and discuss their implications.
Group-owned and single-ownership newspapers do differ, but

just what the differences mean is what the final section is

about.

20. Sim. newness; WW
N w , p. 60.

CHAPTER FOUR

Opinions on the effects of group-ownership are
numerous and varied. Fvidence on the implications of
group-ownership on the other hand is harder to find. There
were no relevant empirical studies found in the literature
that conclusively determined the type of ownership of a
newspaper had any effect on its quality. Still, the survey
indicated the type of ownership a newspaper had did have far
reaching implications.

Defining the elements that make a 'good' newspaper is
an almost impossible task if the idea is to achieve overall
concensus on quality of newspapers. An editor or reporter
may judge the quality of the newspaper on any number of
criteria to which there is varying professional agreement,
readers may judge the newspaper for reasons ranging from
what comic strips are carried to coverage of international
news, the publisher and stockholders may judge the quality
of the newspaper on its rate of return on investment, while
advertisers might judge it on the number of customers it
draws into their stores.

If one accepts the premise it is all but impossible to
please everyone with a definition of the ideal newspaper,
the next lOgical step might be to simply determine as

narrowly as possible the conditions that would endanger

76

77

freedom of the press. Using some of the available
literature and the survey of Michigan weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers it may be possible to begin determining where the
dangers of group-ownership exist for weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers in Michigan, if they do exist.

The next task is to determine under what conditions
group-ownership could potentially pose a problem for freedom
of the press. It is assumed in this study that freedom of
the press is the concept that is considered to be in danger
from group-ownership, and that characteristics of ownership
of group-owned newspapers that tend to threaten freedom of
the press should be neutralized.

The literature on group-ownership has many examples of
criticisms of group ownership and suggested remedies. The
problem with all of these studies is that they do not
provide empirical evidence their criticism is valid, and
some of the proposed solutions may be as bad or worse than
the problems they are intended to correct. While most of
the literature addresses itself to the concept of group or
chain ownership as a whole in the newspaper industry, the
bulk of it is based on the daily press, and not weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers. Because of that many of those
criticisms can be dismissed almost immediately.

Earlier it was mentioned that Pucker and Williams
listed a number of advantages to group-ownership. They also
listed a number of disadvantages which included:

-The manager of a group-owned newspaper might not feel

78

compelled to promote the local community to the same degree
that he would if the newspaper were owned by himself or by a
local corporation or partnership.

~Subscribers sometimes feel that the paper is managed
by remote control, that they are not as close to the editor
as they would like to be.

-Permanence of managements is more in question than
when the newspaper is entirely locally owned.

While the survey cannot comment directly on the first
disadvantage cited by Rucker and Williams, a simple logical
evaluation would indicate the idea is not as negative as it
sounds. The concept that a publisher or manager might not
promote the community, might also mean the publisher does
not feel compelled to submit to boosterism journalism which
is blind to a community's problems. The criticism appears
to lack the necessary depth to define precisely how
group-ownership is undesirable, and is open to subjective
evaluation.

The closeness of the editor to the subscriber is again
an extremely vague criticism, and open to interpretation.
It is not well defined, and there was not evidence in the
literature or survey to suggest that most groups have strong
central management structures.

The study can speak to the third disadvantage

1. Frank W. Rucker and Herbert Lee Williams, flgwfipapgg

Organizatiog and Mangaemgn; 3rd ed. (Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1969) p. 21.

79

described by Pucker and Williams, that permanence of
managements is more in question when a newspaper is in
group-ownership than when it is locally owned. The survey
indicated a high rate of turnover for Michigan weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers, with more than half of the
newspapers in the study changing ownership in the past ten
years.

Robert L. Bishop, a University of Michigan journalism
faculty member, may have laid the groundwork to explain the
high rate of turnover for Michigan weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers, while the number of newly established newspapers
in the state remains low. Pishop pointed out that tax
structures in the United States have a steep income tax and
a low capital gains tax, making it more profitable for a
group to buy and sell media properties than to collect their
income. ie wrote about a Michigan newspaper group:

The Panax Corporation of Michigan illustrates
the advantages of this tactic. During the 12
months in 1970-71, the corporation sold a daily, a
weekly, and radio station for capital gains, after
taxes of $1.8 million. The proceeds enabled Panax
to merge with the Macomb Daily, the largest
independent paper in the state except for the
Detroit News, and another group of seven weeklies.
Capital gains for 1971 were almost four times the
net income for operations.(2)

The final criticism by Rucker and Williams is also
vague and fails to define any specific danger of
group-ownership beyond a vague feeling.

BishOp is extremely critical of group-ownership, and

2. RObe't L- BiShOD. "The Rush to Chain Ownerhip,"
£91umhia.deutnali§m.Eexiewu. 11(November/December 1972) D.
15.

80

the thrust of his argument is aimed toward the methods used
to form groups. Bishop cited what he saw as a tendency of
group-owned newspapers to quash competition, the possibility
of cross-media ownership with local or regional monopolies
might mean problems of a region might not be reported there
or other areas, and because ad rates go .down with
competition, but in monopoly situations advertising rates
can simply be raised whenever the owner wants to increase
profits.(3)

Comparing the results of the survey to Bishop's
contention that group-ownership may be a force that tends to
eliminate competition may not generally apply to Michigan
weekly and semi-weekly newspapers, at least for the present,
since a large number of group-owned newspapers reported
competing against weekly newspapers. Gerald C. Stone also
found that group-owned weeklies had strong competition in
his nationwide study of community newspapers.

"Competition is categorically greater for the chain
publications, but this is a consequence of publication in

the suburbs of metropolitan areas,’ Stone wrote in comparing

the level of competition between group-ownership and
single-ownership newspapers in his study.(h)

Since the survey of Michigan weekly and semi-weekly
3. Bishop, "The Rush to Chain Ownership," p. lh-IS.
u. Gerald Cory Stone, "Management of Resources in

Community-Sized Newspapers," (Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse
University, 1975) p. 90.

81

newspapers did not consider cross-media ownership, the
survey results have no bearing on Bishop's assertion that
cross-media ownership can create local or regional
monopolies which can lead to possible supression of news.

The survey results contradict Bishop's argument in
that not only do group-owned newspapers face competition,
they face a different kind of competition than faced by
group-owned newspapers. Ironically, single-ownership
newSpapers in the study reported facing the strongest
competition from shoppers, a non-news medium. That means if
a weekly and semi-weekly newspaper succumbs to strong
competition from a shopper, readers in those communities
could be deprived of their only local news medium, while
most of the readers of group-owned newspapers would have
fewer sources of news if one of their newspapers failed, but
they would still have at least one newspaper.

The presence of competition for most of the
group-owned newspapers means that the condition Bishop
considers a requisite for raising advertising rates at will,
monopoly, is not generally present in the newspapers
considered in the survey. The group-owned newspapers still
should be in stronger position financially with their
greater use of combined pages and advertising, and
relatively higher percentage of ownership of centralized
printing plants. Stone found that mean profit per
subscriber in is study was $11.10 for group-owned newspapers

compared to $8.70 per subscriber for single-ownership

82

newspapers. If Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspapers
conform to Stone's findings, than profits would even be
greater for group-owned newspapers overall since group-owned
newspapers in the survey tended to have more circulation
than single-ownership newspapers.

FishOp describes a number of remedies for
group-ownership including elimination or severe Iimitation
of capital gains advantages, a graduated income tax similar
to the graduated personal income tax, enforcement of rules
on retained earnings such as they were before 1959 when
firms were required to pay out 70 percent of their incomes
to owners (although Bishop did not say at what level he
would set the requirement), not allowing depreciation of
equipment until it is actually replaced or sold, and not
allowing monopoly rent when firm's are sold by either
publishers or broadcasters, that some sort of monopolies
commission be set up, the one market to an outlet rule be
enforced to prevent cross-ownership situations, that
restrictive business practices should be prosecuted as in
the example of a publisher purchasing syndicated material
just to keep a competitor from getting it.(6)

Many of the recommendations Bishops has for preventing
concentration of ownership seem applicable to business as a
whole and not just newspapers, with the exceptions of the
creation of a monopolies commission and the revision of

6. Bishop, "The Rush to Chain Ownership," pp. 18-19.

83

postage rates. The monOpolies commission suggestion is
similar to a recommendation by a Canadian study that
conceded some group-ownership situations have been
beneficial in some situations, it have implications that are.
dangerous. "What matters is the fact that control of the
media is passing into fewer and fewer hands, and that
experts agree this trend is likely to continue and perhaps
accelerate. if the trend is allowed to continue and perhaps
unabated, sooner or later it must reach a point where it
collides with the public interest. The Committee believes
it to be in the national interest to ensure that that point
is not reached," the Canadian report maintains.(7)

Under.the Canadian proposal a Press Ownership Review
Board would have powers to, "approve or disapprove mergers
between or acquisition of, newspapers and periodicals."(8)

The powers given to a government under such a proposal
would be enormous in terms of who would be allowed to
purchase a newspaper, and ominous since nobody has bothered
to define at what point the line is crossed and
group-ownership becomes dangerous. Even if the contentions
of the Canadian media report and Bishop are correct, and
control of newspapers, includuing weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers are passing into fewer and fewer hands, their
solutions to the problem seems nearly as bad as the problem

7. "Canada's Media Report: Mirror of the U.S.," Columbia

.iQuLfliLLflfl nglgw, 10(May/June 1971) pp. 21-22.
8. "Canada's Media Report: Mirror of the U.S.," p. 2“.

8h

itself. Letting a government agency have the power to
decide who is fit to own a newspaper is not much better than
letting group-ownership continue. Taking it a step further
Bishop's suggestion may be unconstitutional, conflicting
with First Amendment press rights.

As mentioned earlier most of Bishop's other
suggestions such as the elimination of capital gains
advantages for groups, depreciation, graduated income taxes,
rules on retained earnings, and not allowing monopoly rent
when a newspaper is sold would seem to apply not to just the
media, but to all businesses. Put in such a light, these
proposed actions would Open broad questions on capital
formation in the United States which are beyond the scope of
this study. Application of the proposals to just the media
would seem to be somewhat discriminatory and perhaps in
conflict with the First Amendment. The proposal that
cross-media ownership be eliminated in monopoly situations
has become more than just a proposal since the Federal
Communications Commission has begun to crackdown on some
situations where the only newspaper in an area owns the only
radio station.(9)

The basic question involved in both the Bishop and
Canadian argument revolves around access to the press, and
the number of voices heard through it. If this is taken to

be the goal or one of the goals of freedom of the press,

I. William Hill, "FCC Breaks-up Media in 16 Cities,"
Macaw. (February 1. 1976) p. 9.

85

group-ownership in Michigan is not a threat if the survey
results are correct. The real problem may lie in protecting
the large number of single-ownership newspapers in the
survey competing against shOppers. The suggestion by Bishop
that the federal government, "should help solve dis
tribution problems for magazines and local newspapers by
restructuring postal rates" is applicable to the study's
situation.(10)

Under current conditions competing with mass
circulation shoppers in rural areas with a free circulation
newspaper poses a problem for weekly and semi-weekly
newspapers. Unless they decide to develop some type of
delivery system of their own, the rural weekly newspapers
with a competing shopper would be forced to resort to
controlled circulation or third class mail which would raise
costs per copy of delivery nearly to the same level as
shoppers, but since shoppers can use space devoted tonews in
the newspaper for additional advertisng revenue to help
offset costs they can still keep their advertisng rates
lower. In sparsely populated areas organizing an in-house
organization to deliver newspapers would be difficult,
especially for smaller newspapers with limited staff and
capital.

All of this still does not develop a helpful
definition of the problems posed by group ownership, since
beyond the vague threat of fewer voices nothing has been

10. BishOp, "The Rush to Chain Ownership," p.19.

86

offered as evidence that group ownership is dangerous.

A reasonable method of determining whether
group-ownership is detrimental to a free press might be to
gather statistical information such as in this survey, and
determine the impact of groupeownership on freedom of the
press. Carefully defining the problems and then working
toward solutions that meets the definition of the problem
would seem more rational than simply opening the door to
infringements on First Amendment rights by the imposition of
government council with control over who owns media outlets.

Beyond that, a new definition of group-ownership and
other terms may be necessary. Most of the groups consisting
of two newspapers in the study did not share the
characteristics of larger groups or single-ownership
newspapers. Further, some groups, especially those in
metropolitan areas may need to retain their current form
simply to survive against daily newspapers. Splitting up
the groups could mean the end of the economic base of
support provided by combination pages and mass circulation.
in other words the boundary lines of a community may not
define a viable marketing area.

Some of the characteristics of ownership in the survey
might help contribute to a definition of the problem of
group-ownership and its impact on freedom of the press.

The survey indicated that close to half of the
newspapers that had recently changed ownership had gone from

single-ownership to group-ownership, while few group-owned

87

newspapers became single ownership newspapers. Further it
was indicated that a higher percentage of the newspapers had
changed ownership in just the past few years, while few new
newspapers had come on the scene. in addition, the
literature indicates a continuing disappearance of rural
newspapers.

There was still a sharp difference between newspapers
in group-ownership which tended to face competition from
weekly neWSpapers and single-ownership newspapers which
tended to face competition from shoppers. Putting all of
this together seems to indicate that rural newspapers are on
the decline or at least in a period of consolidation, while
group-owned newspapers are expanding using single-ownership
newspapers as a base for their growth.

The immediate problem would seem to be how to prevent
single-ownership newspapers from failing, and if further
investigation confirms a rapid rate of absorption of
single-ownership newspapers by group newspapers, methods of
evaluating whether those newspapers can survive on their own
and if group-ownership will tend to have negative impact
will be needed. The difference in the figures on
competition would tend to indicate that the loss of rural
neWSpapers and the growth of group-ownership are in some
ways separate trends. The group-owned newspaper's tendency
to have a larger circulation, greater ownership to own
central printing plants, use of common pages, combined

advertising, and use of lower cost methods of delivery all

88

suggest that grOUp-owned newspapers are stronger
financially, but their concentration in metropolitan aras
also suggests that perhaps many of the advantages of
group-ownership are reliant on being located in a densely
populated area. All of these characteristics may not be
easily adaptable to rural newspapers either in
single-ownership or group-ownership.

In that case a definition of an element crucial to
ownership might be location. Newspapers in urban areas may
simply be more suited to group-ownership,although a number
of groups consisting of two newspapers exist in these areas.
Further study is needed to determine if these small groups
are the basis for further growth or simply one
single-ownership publisher buying another publisher down the
road out to build a stronger financial base for his
operations.

Since newspapers are businesses, and businesses have
to make money to survive, further research should be done to
determine to what degree single-ownership newspapers in
rural areas are failing because of a shrinking advertising
base, and to what degree shoppers are sapping off existing
advertising and putting weeklies and semi-weeklies out of
business. it may develop that an approach similar to
BishOps on postal rates would help balance the competitive
scales.

The higher rate of ownership of central printing

plants among group-owned newspapers may reflect a source of

i f,“

 

 

89

potential problems for single-ownership newspapers which are
more likely to depend on the services of a central plant.
Situations could develOp where a central printing plant
owned by a newspaper group could be forced to drop
single-ownership newspapers using the printing plant on a
contract basis.

An example might be a newsprint shortage where only
enough newsprint is available to handle the group's
newspapers. Another example might be a group's desire to
take over the area covered by a newspaper printed in the
central printing plant. The printing plant might simply
close its doors to the independent newspaper forcing it to
find another place or way to get its newspaper printed. A
central plant might even refuse to handle a newspaper
because of special interest group pressure.

As mentioned in the first chapter, David R. Bowers
views the centralized printing plant as a mechanism for the
creation of groups when failing nwspapers fall behind in
their bills because of poor management:

By its nature of printing newspapers for
others, the central printing plant is in a
position to absorb these publications when they
come up for sale--or cannot pay their bills, in
some cases. One publisher who must remain
anonymous, quite frankly says he hopes to add
newspapers which cannot pay their bills because he
feels their failure is caused by their inefficient
operation. He feels he can make a number of them
succeed through sound business methods.(11)

if a newspaper cannot find a place to be printed or
11. David R. Bowers, "The Impact of Centralized Printing

on the .Community Press," W WhMSpring
1969) pp. us-us.

9O

afford a press than freedom of the press could be affected.
The tradeoff for lower capital costs may well be a potential
threat to the existence of the newspaper.

A possible area of further study might examine the
ownership patterns of centralized printing plants to
determine the number of groups owning printing plants, and
where the plants are located. An examination of prior
ownership of Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspapers
printed at the central plants, and where they were printed
before they changed hands would help shed light and gauge
the impact of centralized plants on weekly and semi-weekly

newspapers 0

SUHNARY

The survey indicated that Michigan weekly and
semi-weekly newspapers in group-ownership differ in many
ways from single-ownership newspapers. While the
differences in the characteristics have been examined at
some length, the question of whether or not group-ownership
poses a threat to freedom of the press or the continuance of
single-ownership Michigan weekly and semi-weekly newspapers
is far from answered. Single-ownership newspapers in the
survey reported facing strong competition from shoppers, a
non-news medium, group-owned newspapers said they faced
strong competition from other weekly newspapers. That

finding would tend to contradict the common belief that

91

group-ownership inhibits competition.

The finding that group-ownership seems to be expanding
through the acquisition of established single-ownership
newspapers, while few new weekly and semi-weekly newspapers
have been founded in the past few years was important. Of
the recently established newspapers in the survey, most were
group-owned.

Ownership of central plants falling primarily among
group-owned newspapers is important in the potential impact
it could have among the single-ownership newspapers. While
76.5 percent of the single-ownership newspapers in the study
used a centralized printing plant, only 30.5 percent of the
newspapers printed in central printing plants owned a
portion or all of the plant they used. That opens questions
of how much control single-ownership newspapers as a whole
have over their own fate.

As expected most group-owned newspapers were located
in urban or suburban areas, while most single-ownership
newspapers were located in rural areas of Michigan.
Location may be related to a number of findings in the study
such as the heavy use of combination rates and
pages/sections among group-owned newspapers as well as
greater use of news carriers since denser populations make
these techniques appropriate.

The higher average number of pages for group-owned
newspapers may indicate a stronger financial position for

group-owned newspapers. The findings of other newspaper

92

studies tends to support that idea.

Other expected findings included a larger higher
average staff size for group-owned newspapers, and the
larger number of respondents indicating they used an offset
printing process. Respondents also reported having
substantial amounts of typesetting equipment, with most
newspapers in the study being at least able to have their
newspapers camera ready before going to the central printing
plant.

There were also strong differences among the
group-ownership newspapers in the study with groups
consisting of two newspapers differing significantly from
larger groups. The groups consisting of two newspapers were
also different than single-ownership newspapers in the
study. The smaller groups may combine both the
characteristics of single-ownership and group-owned
newspapers or they may represent a third type of ownership.
More study is needed to determine just why these newspapers
are different.

This study has attempted to be a descriptive
examination of the ownership characteristics of Michigan
weekly and semi-weekly newspapers. Hopefully, it has filled
in some of the void left by past lack of research in the

area and opened the door for further study.

93

RIRLIOGPAPY

Books

Babble, Farl R. Sugyey Researgh Pgtbgds. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Books, 1973.

Janowitz, Morris. The figmmgnifix_fige§§ in an Urban Setting.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Liebling, A. J. Ihe Erggfi. New Yorszallantine Books, 1961.

Hie, Norman H; Hull, C. P.; Jenkins, J. 6.; Steinbrenner,

K.; Pent, D. H. _§££fl££.£QL the Sgslal
§glgngg§. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

Rucker, Frank W., and Williams, Herbert Lee. ugwgpgggL
Otganization and Management.3rd ed. Ames, iowa:

Iowa State University Press, 1969.

Sim, John Cameron. ]be filfififilgglfi Eggggi Amgciga's

Community figuggangg. Ames iowa: lowa State
University Press, 1969.

Journals and Periodicals

Bishop, Robert L. "The Rush to Chain Ownership." Columbia

Jougnalism PQXIPW- 11(November/Decemher 1972)
pp. 10-19.

Pottoni, Ronald L. "Group Ownership of Newspapers." Etggdom
of Infogmatign Repgct N9, 190. (November, 1967)

Bowers, David R. "The Impact of Centralized Printing on the

Community Press." Joutnalism Ouagterly
h6(Sprlng 1969) DD. “3'96.

CODSO‘i’ John. "CPOnga Publisher Rides Suburban Wave,"

Editgc and Publishgn (August 21, 1976) p. 11.

9h

"Canada's Media Report: Pirror of the ”.3." Columbia
Journalism Review. 10(“ay/June 1971) 00. 21-28.

Frankovich, Fmily Watson. "Small Voices of Piversity."
lbs Hagig . 28(April 20, 1979) DD. “95-h97.

Hayes, Charles F. "Newspaper Growth Action is in the

Suburbs." Cgaggroots Editor 17(Spring 1976) p. 3.

Hill, l. William. "FCC Breaks-up Media in 16 Cities."
Editor and Publisher (February 1, 1976) p. 3.

Pvistendahl, J. K. "Press Outlook Bright for Community

Newspapers." Gragstogts Editor 17(Aprll/June 1976)
DD. 3'“, 15.

Nixon, Raymond B., and Hahn, Tae-Youl. "Concentration of
Press Ownership: A Comparison of 32 Countries,"
Journalism Quartegjygh9(8pring 1971) pp. 5-17.

Hixon Raymond, P. "Half of Nation's Dailies Now in
Croup Ownership." Fditot and Publisher (July 17,
1975) DD. 7, 32.

Pullen, Rick. "When the Chain Came to Town." 1 r o
Editog 13(May/June 1972) pp. 16-17.

Schlaver, C. O. "Schaumburg's Population Explosion Anchors

Copley's lllinois Expansion," Amecigan Eigig
90(Narch 1972) pp. 22-25.

Stone Cerald C. "Validation of Economic Surveys in the

Weekly Newspaper Field." Journaligm Ouarggpiy
53(Summer 1976) pp. 312-313.

"Suburban Success Story: Growing 'Neigbbors' Take to the

Suburbs of Atlanta," Amerigan Pcess
90(January 1972) DD. 22-25.

95

Theses and Dissertations

Huck, Cathy Shook. ”Newspapers, Inc.:
The impact of Corporate Ownership on its Community
Newspapers." “.8. Thesis, Hurray State
University, 1972.

Kramer, Robert K. "A Case Study of Neighbor Newspapers,
Inc." N.A. Thesis, University of Georgia, 1972.

Kromp, Odalie Karen. "The Computerization of Georgia's
Weekly Newspapers and Nanagement Evaluation of
Specific Equipment." M.A. Thesis, University of
Ceorgia, 1973.

Stone, Cerald C. "Management of Resources in Community
Sized Newspapers." Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse
University, 1975. ‘

nther Sources

NcAllister, William, ed. mmmmgt
Ngmgpaggrg

and chigdigals. Philadelphia: N. W. Ayer and
Sons, inc., 1975.

Michigan Press Association. Michigan Neugpapg; fligggtoty
and Ratebook. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
Press Association, 196k.

Michigan Press Association. Migbigan newgpgpgg Directory
and Ratebooh. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan

Press Association, 1976.

 

National Newspaper Association. 1926 Ugekly Newspaper
Cost Study. National Newspaper Association:
Washington D.C. 1976.

APPENDIX

96

Weekly Newspaper Survey

Please answer the following brief multiple chOice and fill-in questions by either circling

or filling in the pne appropriate response. After completing the questionaire, please mail .
it back in the self:addressed stamped envelope enclosed. All information given on this form
is confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only. We ask for identification
only as a method of checking-off returned forms and in case fOIlOWvup questions are necessary.

I

Name of newspaper

 

Name and title of person
filling out form

 

 

 

1. What is the circulation of the newspaper?_’_

 

2. How many people (including part—time) are on your news staff?

 

3. is your newspaper located in an urban or suburban area?
A. Yes B. No

4. is the editor of the newspaper:
A. The owner of the newspaper? B A person hired by the pubiisher(s)?

5. How many newspapers are controlled by management of the newspaper?

6. Is the newspaper printed in a centralized printing plant that prints more than one news-

paper?
A. Yes .8 No
7. If you answered yes above is the caper taken to the centralized printing plant:
A. With the copy ngt_yet typeset and pasted up? 8. Camera ready?
C. With the negative already shot? D. With the plate already burned?

E. Does not apply?

8. Is the centralized plant owned by thegnewspaper's publishing firm or publisher?
A. Yes 8. No .'

9. How many years has the newspaper been in existence?

 

10. How many years has the newspaper been owned by the same publisher or firm?

h.—

 

11. Was the newspaper preViously owned by a:
A. Person or firm owning more than one newspaper?
B. Person or finn owning this newspaper only?
C. (Does not apply, only one person or firm has owned the paper)

12. Is the newspaper's advertising sold in combination with other papers on a regular basis?
A. Yes B. No.

13. Does the newspaper share pages or sections with another newspaper?
A. Yes 8. No

14. Is the newspaper published using a:
A. Letterpress process B. Photocomposition Process C. Other processes

15. Is the paper a:
A. Tabloid B. Broadsheet

16. How many pages does the newspaper average?

 

17. Please circle the method(s) used.to deliver your paper. (Mark more than one if necessary
on this question only)
A. Second class mail 8 Controlled circulation mail C. Third class mail
D. News carrier/Motor carrier E. News stand F. Other methods

18. Are you contemplating changing your method of delivery because of postage increases?
A. Yes 8. No C. Does not apply

19. What media or medium (shopper, radio station, other weekly, daily) do you face the
strongest competition from?

 

97

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN i832}

 

SCHOOL OF jOL‘RNAUSM - [INIUV “All.

I am using the attached survey as part of my master of arts thesis
in Journalism at Michigan State University and would very much
appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to fill out the form
and return it in the enclosed self—addressed stamped enve10pe.

I am collecting information on ownership patterns of weekly newspapers
and the characteristics of each of the papers. All information

collected is confidential and will be used for statistical purposes

only. I am asking you to put your name on the form as a check-off.
procedure and in case further questions are necessary. Since I can
afford to send out only a linited number of forms and this is basically a

statistical study, every form returned is important.

If you would like more information on the survey, please place an "X"
at the too of the first page of the questionaire. I will respond

as soon as possible.

Thank-you for your time and help,

Thomas P. Standley

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

3129301 1030594