The New Way for newspapers comes with a few “new rules,” as Bill Maher likes to call them. Only these are serious.

1. If newspapers are going to survive, first some newspapers will have to die. And it’s every man for himself.

2. The printed newspaper, like any product, can – and must – evolve.

3. Everything the pundits said was going to happen is happening now.

4. The New Way requires new leadership styles.

Those are the rules. Consider them working assumptions as this blog progresses.

I’ve kept a lot of memos and ideas under wraps here at the Herald-Tribune, where I work as content manager for national-award-winning HeraldTribune.com. But the problems our industry faces are urgent and the time has come to share my ideas for solutions.

This blog is for anyone invested in the newspaper industry. That’s publishers, editors, writers, advertising account reps, news clerks, carriers, Web site managers and, of course, stock holders. Even if only a few of my ideas are revolutionary, your company can’t afford to ignore them.

Now is the time to do everything newspapers have dreamt up during the last decade. Now. Or never.

The six steps to overcoming a disruptive business model and creating a new one to live by.

With CraigsList in your market, the time for hand-wringing and worrying is over. It’s time to do something.

So far newspapers like mine in smaller markets have had the fortunate position of watching as consequences unfolded elsewhere. Problem is the clearest thing we’ve learned from other newspapers is no one can keep Classifieds paid and expect to retain market share. The second problem is no one makes money from free classifieds.

To survive, the small newspapers must take a more revolutionary approach than anyone who has come before us. As the week progresses, I’ll outline six steps to beating CraigsList and then some.

I’m saving the best for last. Step No. 7 has nothing to do with CraigsList. And that’s why you’ll want to read it.

1) Match CraigsList at its game

When it moves into a new community, CraigsList’s biggest challenge is attracting enough people to its site that it then becomes a reliable source for classifieds. The first step to beating CraigsList is keeping market share.

CraigsList’s only tool for luring customers is that it offers Classifieds for free. Face the facts: No one is going to pay for something they can get for free elsewhere. The sooner your newspaper stops charging for classifieds, the better. Newspapers that were slow to the free model lost virtually all market share.

But CraigsList defines Classifieds in a much more limited way than traditional newspaper categories. Much of what newspapers call “Classifieds” can still be charged for, such as the very profitable real estate programs that essentially look like display ads. Anything that looks like a display ad can still be sold. What CraigsList gives away are text listings.

If newspapers don’t retain market share of the core text listings, then it puts at risk all of the high-end paid “classifieds” programs.

Tomorrow's entry: Step No. 2, Change Paradigm

2) Change paradigm

The operators of CraigsList are not out to make a buck, they’re out to make a point. And this is their biggest weakness. Once newspapers accept their lesson, we can make more money than CraigsList.

Here’s the lesson (using the CraigsList definition of a classified).

Classifieds are content, not advertising. Classifieds are placed by readers, not advertisers. If ever the newspaper industry made a miscalculation, it was mixing up its readers with its advertisers.

Listen to the CEO of CraigsList, Jim Buckmaster, as he explains to The Wall Street Journal why his site charges some businesses for listings:

“We're much more comfortable charging companies than charging individuals. Businesses are better equipped to afford a small fee and businesses can pay for fees out of pre-tax dollars where on average users are less able to pay a fee and they have to pay in post-tax dollars.”

Tomorrow's entry: Step No. 3, Identify the Actual Advertisers

3) Identify the actual advertisers

If core Classifieds are placed by readers, then who are the advertisers? Newspapers print all kinds of content. No one pays us to print stories. How did we make a business out of that free service? Well we all know the answer.

If Classifieds are content, the only way to make money off them is by selling the eyeballs who read the content. Newspapers should be good at that.

Furthermore, it should be easier to sell ads around Classifieds. Everyone reading the section wants to buy something. There is no better target customer. If a Classifieds reader is in the market for a washing machine, she’s looking for a deal. What better moment for Sears to advertise its latest appliance sale?

Tomorrow's entry: Step No. 4, Cut Expenses

4) Cut expenses

Even if the newspaper does start selling advertisers around its classifieds content, it’s probably never going to recoup all of the lost classifieds revenue. There are consequences to that realization.

The Classifieds section must shrink. Just like stock listings, we know readers don’t need all of them in the newspaper. Many categories should become online-only, where there are no costs to maintaining the market share. Only the classifieds categories that attract advertisers should be printed.

Tomorrow's entry: Step No. 5, Identify Competitive Advantages

5) Identify competitive advantages

What CraigsList offers is not the same service as the newspaper.

Newspapers have printed pages; CraigsList does not. That’s the one thing CraigsList can never give away: Printed listings, delivered directly to your neighbors’ homes.

So the question is do we hold onto that advantage as the last frontier for charging individuals. Or do we use that competitive advantage to solidify / increase market share?

Sure is tempting to charge. But charging isn’t going to help solidify market share, which is vital to CraigsList’s success.

Tomorrow's entry: Step No. 6, Disrupt CraigsList

6) Disrupt CraigsList

Instead of learning from our failed newspaper brethren, let’s take a lesson from CraigsList itself. They stole our lunch by giving away something we couldn’t or weren’t willing to give away ourselves. It’s our turn to steal their lunch by using the same tactic.

CraigsList makes much of its money from charging businesses to place Classifieds ads in categories such as jobs and autos. They have a Robin Hood approach built on their belief that businesses are greedy and should be punished. If your newspaper allows businesses to place basic text classifieds for free, same as an individual, market share will surpass CraigsList significantly. My guess is this is a service CraigsList is unwilling to offer because it doesn’t like businesses, and it’s the company’s main source of revenue.

But that’s just a first step to disrupting CraigsList.

Wishful thinkers in the newspaper industry say we can all make money from free classifieds if we gather a lot of upsells together. Maybe for a short time that would generate some revenue. But the moment someone starts giving away the upsells for free, we’re in the same predicament. That’s why we should do it first.

Expanded text? Free. Multiple photos? Free. Video? Free.

Anything you can think of that we’d call an upsell must be redefined as a free service for our readers. We must commit ourselves to the principle that we don’t charge our readers, we charge our advertisers. Businesses are advertisers. Individuals are just trying to socially network.

When these services prove popular with users, CraigsList will provide them, as well. Problem is they can’t afford to offer expensive services such as video without selling ads around the Classifieds content, which they are ideologically opposed to doing. Luckily, we’re not.

When CraigsList eventually matches our ante and begins eating away at its own profits, your newspaper still has the upsell they can never offer: the printed page. Classifieds delivered to your neighbor’s front door? Free.

Here’s another free upsell Craigslist can’t offer.

It is the vast minority of readers who read the classifieds section from front to back. We all know readers pick up the Classifieds section for the utility. A reader is looking for a washing machine and looks for that category. But something else is happening online. “Top ads” programs are wildly successful. Here’s how they work. Classifieds run not within the borders of any Classifieds section; instead, they run near related content, where the casual shopper is more likely to find them.

If newspapers mimic that placement in print, it’s an upsell no one else can give away for free. It is a competitive advantage unique to newspapers.

***

Bottomline is that CraigsList is not invincible. To the contrary, CraigsList is made vulnerable by its idealistic approach to business. The goal of newspapers should be not only to survive CraigsList, but to bankrupt them.

The company is made up of 25 extremists whose greatest strength thus far has been their zealous commitment to an anti-business strategy. By offering free upsells, we must increase the cost of doing business so much that selling advertising around classifieds is the only way to stay in the black. CraigsList will not take that step, and they will fold.

Here’s Buckmaster’s excuse for why he refuses to sell banner ads: “It's not something our users have asked us for.”

As we all know, users will never ask him for advertising. But CraigsList doesn’t care.

“There are big advantages to focusing exclusively on user wants and needs as we do, and blocking out everything else. That's one of the ways we keep our staff small and our operations simple."

There are also big disadvantages to such an exclusive focus, and they’re outlined by this series of blog entries.

The window of opportunity for your newspaper to proactively respond to this new competitor is small. CraigsList spokeswoman Susan MacTavish Best is quoted as saying it takes nine to 12 months for a new city to catch on.

Tomorrow's entry: The 7th Step; Beyond CraigsList

Fast Company has written a flattering article about Rob Curley, who was for a short time my counterpart to the South when he took over the Naples Daily News site. As much as I’m tired of hearing about Curley, the article reminds us all why he’s successful. Can’t argue with doubling profits, right? And not many can boast page view growth like this from his stint in Lawrence, Kansas:

“Three years after Curley took over, monthly page views soared from around 500,000 to a peak of around 13 million. Not bad for a town with 82,000 residents.”

The Naples site enjoyed a salient resurgence of energy during the takeover. The self-proclaimed “Internet punk” successfully transported his trademark sense of humor and innovation to a place with one of the oldest populations in the country.

Oh, the memories. As Hurricane Wilma approached in 2005 and residents took shelter from a storm that could have killed them, Curley thought it would be cool to affix a Wilma Flintstone icon to the header. They’re both named Wilma. Get it?

Curley is his own sort of hurricane, though, and having shook things up in Naples is already moving onto a new project. What else do you expect from a guy whose boss calls him a “disruptive missile” and is notorious for drinking gallons of Mountain Dew and Red Bull?

Curley, it was a hoot having you in the state. Best of luck in your latest gig at washingtonpost.com.

Newspapers should take what they know about their kryptonite and use it against each other. Remember Rule No. 1. “If newspapers are going to survive, first some must die.”

Maybe even more than most industries, newspapers spend time identifying and talking about our own weaknesses. And maybe there’s nothing we can do to fix them. But we can exploit the weakness of competing newspapers.

The market doesn’t need 1,000 sources for health news, or travel news, or movie reviews. In the old world, each newspaper had to cover these topics. If they didn’t, who else would? Problem is that online newspapers compete amid a national market.

Classifieds demonstrates how this new playing field changes our reality and exposes a weakness. The market doesn’t want 1,000 places for classifieds. Consumers can comprehend only a handful of sources.

Maybe that means your newspaper is going to lose its classifieds revenue. If it does, your newspaper is going to hurt financially. On the other side of that coin, though, the market for classifieds is going to expand rapidly for someone.

Be that someone.

Be the first to stop lamenting the opportunity new technology has to ruin our budgets and become that new technology.

Craigslist demonstrates that giving away classifieds for free is an effective way to soak up market penetration where there had been none. That should make you think about the competing news organizations at your territory borders.

Is there a newspaper one town over? There doesn’t need to be.

Start your own free classifieds Web site one town over. Later expand that same site two towns over. And then three. When you have a lock on the classifieds market, start news operations there with the user-submitted sites we’re all so worried about.

There will be only one jobs site for all of Florida, where I live. Newspapers are unwitting entrants in a race to win the title as this state’s Classifieds Web site.

Classifieds revenues are like meat and potatoes to newspaper beasts. But when classifieds are free, they’re less filling. The beast needs to eat much more food than it did before. And that means roaming.

Newspapers must expand their classifieds boundaries, just to stay alive. And in most cases that means eating a neighbor’s lunch.

The rare opportunity presented any Web site to become an industry leader and serve its readers better than ever before.

A one-time opportunity to dramatically increase Web-exclusive content and television convergence is here, but only some journalism companies will recognize the moment and take advantage. Those that act will become leaders in the industry and those that do nothing will quickly fall behind.

A trend is quietly affecting the relationship between newspapers and their Web sites. Until recently, news Web sites had to hire someone charged with wrangling the slightest enhancement from editors and their writers. Now that person’s time is spent deciding which podcast, audio slideshow or multimedia graphic gets done and which doesn’t fit in the schedule.

There’s been a switch. Instead of Web staff, it’s reporters and editors asking for more.

No one knows whether this shift is permanent, but everyone agrees it’s a tremendous, never-before-seen opportunity to tie the newsroom closer to its Web site and television partner. Such a close tie would result in an explosion of the Web-only and converged content that we all agree will sustain newspapers into the future: More breaking news, searchable information, photos, documents, extras and original multimedia reporting.

How can your newspaper capitalize on this moment?

Tomorrow's entry: Tactics for transferring ownership

(2 of 5 in “From good to great” series)

Models that help the newsroom take ownership of its Web site are already emerging. And they can be adapted to benefit the television partner, as well.

With interests in the Web so wide ranging, it’s the job of newspaper leaders to focus the newsroom’s energy into areas that matter and can be sustained. To do this, Knight-Ridder and washingtonpost.com use cascading goals. Among each editor’s goals are increasing page views, promoting the Web site in the newspaper, and more convergence.

For example, the business editor might be charged with posting two items to the breaking news blog each day, providing reporters to be interviewed on television five days a week, teasing the Web site in 10 new ways each week, and increasing page views 10 percent year-over-year.

Imagine the effect of requiring an editor to increase page views in their section online. His turf is suddenly larger. On a daily basis, the editor will assign reporters with a mindset that the newspaper company must own the story in print and online. In all likelihood, more editors will follow the example of Herald-Tribune features editors Rod Harmon and Joel Welin: In addition to regular newspaper coverage of the Sarasota Film Festival, they assigned two reporters to writing a live blog, two reporters to SNN Channel 6 coverage, and two page designers to developing video podcasts. With revised goals, this sort of converged resource allocation can happen every day at your newspaper on a smaller scale.

Learning from such small-scale projects is vital if newspapers are going to compete as multimedia powerhouses on the big stories. Small projects help the newsroom learn ways to overcome obstacles that come with new mediums like video podcasting or live television broadcasting.

One of the many reasons for the success of Knight-Ridder and the Washington Post is that cascading goals are tied to the performance review system.

Here at the Herald-Tribune, reporters are told that annual raises are tied to their level of involvement in convergence. The same policy exists at the Washington Post. And to prove it, one of the Web’s top editors is asked to rate each employee’s involvement. The rating is considered when deciding raises.

Bottomline is your newspaper must use goals and performance management to be explicit about its commitment to convergence.

Tomorrow's entry: Set up for success

(3 of 5 in “From good to great” series)

Focusing goals is an important step toward focusing energy, but new mandates will most certainly be received negatively if the newspaper does little to help editors succeed.

Don’t set editors up for failure by withholding the tools for success. Two kinds of tools are needed most everywhere:

First, simplify technology.

Most reporters are sent into the field with only a phone and a notepad. How will they record audio, video or photos? To be converged, reporters must have the tools of convergence.

That doesn’t mean every reporter should drag around a digital SLR camera, a video camera and a tape recorder. No reporter will welcome that burden. I heard Jon Landman of NYTimes.com once say that if the technology is simple enough, reporters will use it.

Take advantage of miniature modern technology. Can every reporter can be equipped with a cell phone that has a built-in camcorder, camera and e-mail access? Yes, the video is good enough for use online. In an emergency, it can be used on television and screenshots can be run in print.

There is evidence that equipping reporters does directly cause new content. The Naples Daily News equipped each of its reporters with an audio tape recorder. The result was enough audio for a daily news podcast.

Second, and most importantly, editors need Web-only staff.

All across the country, newspaper Web sites report being overwhelmed by requests from the newsroom to do more, faster. Everyone in online leadership is concerned that being forced to turn away valid content opportunities will leave folks forever turned off.

At the Washington Post, there is such high use of reporter-generated audio that they started providing training on how best to tape record. But first the site fell victim to its own success. Reporters quickly got interested in gathering audio. At least one eager reporter tried it, only to be told the audio quality was so sub-par that it couldn’t be posted.

The Web needs enough staff not only to respond to the overwhelming amount of requests from the newsroom, but also to “pre-edit” and train reporters embarking on new territory.

Tomorrow’s entry: Need for immediate expansion

(4 of 5 in “From good to great” series)

At the Associated Press, the Web staff of 10 multimedia producers is so overwhelmed that the duty of posting breaking news is being transferred directly to desk editors. JSOnline.com has already made the switch. HeraldTribune.com followed their lead because it frees up time for Web producers to answer the demand for multimedia.

To be frank, most Web sites don’t have enough staff to respond to requests, nevermind if new mandates (via performance management) are given to editors. Some reporters who want to learn and participate are pushed to the back of the line, or told that someone else’s project is more important. At current staffing levels, good journalism opportunities are missed all across this nation on a regular basis.

What would all of these new staffers do? First, the more basic question is, where will they sit?

After increasing the staff level to respond to our newsroom’s demands, Web sites should adopt another national trend. All online producers should sit in the newsroom alongside other reporters and editors from their section. For example, the Online Producer for A&E; would sit with the staff for features and the weekend entertainment book. As we’ve learned from our convergence efforts here in Sarasota, proximity can be the most important factor in making communication easy and assured.

And before we discuss what producers will be doing, it’s important to note that their main job will be empowering the newsroom. Small Web sites can be many times larger than the size of their staffs if the power of the newsroom can be put to work.

Producers would solicit ideas and create content such as this:

• Topics pages, the great idea for SEO from NYTimes.com
• Video interviews with reporters
• Podcasts
• Staff and community blogs
• Harvest video packages and raw footage from TV partner
• User-submitted content sections
• Photo galleries
• Flash multimedia presentations
• Daily extras such as documents

All of these areas of coverage are woefully inadequate at the Web’s current staff levels. And online producers should be responsible for usability testing of their section, optimizing it for discovery by search engines, and for reporting traffic statistics to reporters and editors.

Adding FTEs can take an act of Congress these days at newspapers, but the pay off is significant in more content, more page views and a significantly more professional final product.

Tomorrow’s entry: Can this be done?

(Last installment in “From good to great” series)

Consider the infamous “Innovator’s Dilemma.” As a company’s main source of revenue dries up, it takes deliberate leadership to reallocate jobs and money to those areas of immature but growing revenue. Those companies with the discipline to adjust will survive and those that don’t adjust will cease to exist.

Revenues from newspaper’s printed versions are declining across the industry. But revenue from their Web sites increases in double-digit percentages. Problem is Web revenues are still small in comparison to the traditional printed newspaper.

The Wall Street Journal suggested in an article that this transition is, for some reason, hitting the Boston area before others.

"Whatever ails our industry got to Boston first," says Ken Chandler, editor of the rival newspaper, the Boston Herald. "It's the Internet. It's all the choices people have for their time."

The imperative to transition resources online is most pronounced at another Boston paper, The Boston Globe, a fellow New York Times owned newspaper. According to the WSJ article, The Globe is on track for an unprofitable year. A loss.

The Globe has been cutting costs. Last fall, the paper offered buyouts to 185 employees and to another 25 employees this year and is likely to offer more, according to people familiar with the situation. Over the summer, the Globe quietly cut 10% of the space it devotes to news each day, to save on printing costs. And yesterday, the Newspaper Guild voted on a new contract that would tie wages to revenue growth at the newspaper for four years.

Amid all this, Boston.com revenues hit the $30 million mark this year and are presumably rising.

Look no further for a real-life example of the “Innovator’s Dilemma” than Boston, where success depends on further investment in the Web. It’s not only an example, but also it’s a harbinger of what’s to come for the nation’s newspapers.

So the question isn’t “can these changes be made,” it’s “can we afford not to change?”

Listen to Peter Zollman, of the Classified Intelligence and the AIM Group, in an article he wrote for SNPA eBulletin yesterday:

As audience migrates online at a remarkable pace, too many newspapers are positioning for the past. They’re trying to convert twice-a-week readers into three-times-a-week readers. They’re using every trick in the book to increase print circulation. They’re focusing on selling more inserts, more classified “liners” – frequently giving them away – and more small print ads to more small advertisers. Great ideas, all. I wouldn’t denigrate a one. But why not instead focus where the audience is going?

The audience is moving online but some of our greatest investment is in the status-quo. Zollman suggests the need for the type of leadership I'm talking about –– leadership that has the courage to choose long-term strategies over short-term ones.

Zollman goes on to talk about his theory for how newspaper classifieds can beat the likes of Craigslist. Be more local than Craigslist, he says. Of course, the implication there is that newspapers aren't already trying to be local. And the sad thing is we're not trying hard enough.

Being more local in our coverage is the way to beat anyone. But as I've said before, newspapers cannot settle in existing coverage areas. We've got to be more local, to more localities than ever before. It's hard, but someone's going to do it.

Spending all this time working online has led me to a theory. All news – no matter the subject or how targeted its audience – should be free.

First of all, the goal of any newspaper or magazine is to educate the public about its coverage area. It’s not supposed to be about making money or satisfying share holders or any of that. It’s supposed to be about journalism. This role as a public servant conflicts with charging for access to the news.

Second of all, and more importantly, free is what the market demands. All over the globe, free newspapers and magazines are coming to life. Take London, for example.

Two free newspapers launched there in September, and Bloomberg News reports that in their first month the freebies exploded in popularity. “London Lite” distributed 359,389 copies, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, and “thelondonpaper” was slightly behind with 327,120 copies. Compare that to the traditional Evening Standard, which distributed just 289,254 paid copies, a 7.6 percent decrease from the previous month.

The advent of the freebies is the beginning of the last act for the Standard, unless it goes free. But the odds of the Standard going free are a long shot, especially since it’s actually increasing the cost per issue.

Why can’t newspaper companies do simple economics? We all agree that demand for newspapers is dropping everywhere. Think back to your collegiate economics class and that means maintaining current circulation levels requires reducing the price. Declining demand certainly shouldn’t trigger a price increase!

Yes, I used an exclamation point.

But this is so frustrating to me. Newspapers could recoup much of their dwindling circulation (or maybe even increase circulation) just be reducing the cost of a single-copy and subscription.

And what’s worse is that newspapers don’t even rely on the pocket money they make from circulation. Increased circulation means the publication can charge advertisers more to place ads. That’s where the real money is anyway.

Overcharging causes both depressed readership and ad rates. But newspapers are addicted to the paid model. As always, the first step is admitting it.

Looks like someone else over at brasstacksdesign.com has a set of “new rules” for journalism. My rules are much broader lessons to live by. Brasstacks offers what feel more like steps. And Step. No. 6 is “drop the price.”

Most papers offer deep discounts anyway, so this may not be as drastic as it seems. And a lower cover price could reduce churn and the costs associated with it. Sure, we'll take a hit on circulation revenue, but the real money to be lost is in advertising. We must resist pressure to drop ad rates as penetration declines. On the other hand, advertisers will pay even higher rates as long as they get results, but first we gotta deliver the eyeballs.

If you've been reading this blog, you know I couldn't agree more.

Let’s name names. The San Jose Mercury News is about the report a serious decline in circulation, according to E&P.;

Daily is down 9.4% and Sunday slipped 9.7%. Vice President of Circulation David Rounds said the paper has been cutting back on the other-paid category and that home-delivered copies increased this period. Rounds pointed out the paper is still feeling the effects of a single copy price hike.

You have to wonder which is more important to newspapers? Is it more important to retain circulation or to retain the money made from circulation? If your newspaper increases the cost of a single copy, it has decided that revenue is more important than readership.

Wrong decision.

Increasing the cost pushes newspapers toward serving only high-end customers. I’ve heard newspaper execs brag that they target the high-end customers advertisers want. This is pure rationalization.

What’s really happening is predicted in the “Innovator’s Dilemma.” The disruptive technology or business model always begins eating away at the low-end market. The traditional company responds by slowly gravitating toward serving high-end customers only. But eventually the disruptor starts peeling away the high-end market, as well. It’s a matter of time.

The best way to protect the high-end market is to stand and fight on the low end.

For an example of what will happen when newspapers don’t listen to their readers, just look at the latest dismal Sunday circulation numbers released today. Here’s how E&P; reported it:

While the estimated decline 2.8% for daily circulation for all reporting papers may seem negligible, consider that in years past that decrease averaged around 1%. Sunday, considered the industry's bread-and-butter, showed even steeper losses, with a decline of about 3.4%.

A lot of problems contribute to falling circulation these days, and if you watch this blog regularly we’ve discussed a few of them. But one thing about Sunday is striking.

As Sunday circulation losses grow steeper and steeper, Sunday newspapers around the country get thicker and thicker. That’s our response. And it’s a bad one.

Instead, listen to your readership studies, which show that younger readers find these MONSTER newspapers hard to use.

Newspaper execs are taught to infuse their product with mass appeal. And on Sundays, they just go hog wild. To them, mass appeal means sending everything they’ve got.

Focus on sending readers less of what they don’t want. That would make our Sunday morning a better experience. I’m lucky if I can read a fifth of the New York Times that crashes onto my driveway each Sunday. How is that supposed to make me feel?

That’s an honest question. Because those same readership studies predict I will read the newspaper when it makes me feel smarter. If I can’t possibly read the whole thing, how’s that supposed to make me feel?

Pretty dumb.

And I’m not paying anyone to make me feel dumb.

Obviously, I’ve presented a paradox. How can a paper appeal to more people while also delivering a thinner, more selective product? Now is the time stop talking about the answer to this problem and try it. There’s only one answer, and we all know it.

Tomorrow’s entry: Zoning by interest

Readers want more coverage of the things they’re passionate about, but our passions vary. In response, newspapers depend on mass appeal. Topics that interest the majority get covered more than those that interest a few fanatics. The result is a newspaper that lots of people read, but few people love to read.

Some of us believe newspapers should take the opposite track, covering beats in the detail that satisfies even the most passionate reader.

Problem is a newspaper that appeals to everyone’s passions would be massive. And that means it’s expensive to print, to deliver and to buy. If newspapers could figure out how to efficiently zone by interest and increase coverage, circulation would increase.

Newspapers have zoned by county, by town, by neighborhood. Editors and business people agree that folks who live in different areas want different news. Zoning increases circulation and sales. So why not zone more?

To try and address readers’ increasing demand for news, the Sunday paper has grown into a monster. Readership studies show that giant newspapers turn off young people. But it isn’t just the size.

The paper is hard to use not only because it’s so large, but also because finding something interesting requires sifting through even more that isn’t.

Shrinking the paper would make it more attractive to a young demographic. And, let’s remember, there’s no research that says older people actually want a giant newspaper.

Tomorrow's entry: Stop wasting paper