I picked up the New York Times two days ago and I could have told you that there were major cutbacks in its news department before ever reading the story that confirmed my suspicions. The paper isn’t as thick, the stories aren’t as rich and frankly, even the Style section seems a bit anemic of late. Yesterday’s paper had a similar story about the cutbacks at the LA Times and even suggested that the new management is going to let the marketing folks be more involved in determining what content goes in the paper itself. The Chandler family must be rolling over in their graves.

Sure, I could “just say no” to the New York Times in the morning – and maybe soon, I will be forced to cancel my subscription. Forced is the right word really since reading the New York Times is as much a part of my morning ritual as having my morning cuppa jo. I’ve always enjoyed the serendipity associated with the stories I would find on each page and yes, even the ads. For me, it is the quiet part of my day that I can take on my own terms before the demands of clients and staff kick in.

So, I am more than a little distressed to see how newspapers seem to be falling into the classic catalyst trap, that will serve as their death knell if they’re not careful. Cutting costs is one thing, cutting corners on your core product – which in this case is content – is quite another. Bad content equals grouchy subscribers and it does not take much for a grouchy subscriber (especially when economic times are a little uncertain) to become an ex-subscriber. And the more ex-subscribers there are, the more that advertisers will run for the hills. It will be hard to convince either of them to come back, once they are gone.

It seems to me that now is not the time to alienate the loyal base of subscribers that still pay money to read the paper and continue to stoke the advertising engine that keeps newspaper engines firing. There is a whole new generation of people coming up who simply don’t read the paper – and never have – and maybe soon won’t even have their parents persuading them of the wisdom of reading it either. I was talking to a 12 year old just the other day and I asked her if she read the paper. She gave me a funny look and answered “no” as if I should have known that already. She and her friends live in an online world and trusted brands like the New York Times and the LA Times mean little to them. What a shame - since it used to be that those brands stood for something - a measure of quality, a known commodity for aggregating news and information that was useful and interesting. As that reputation erodes given cuts in newsroom staff, even those who could be persuaded to seek out their content online simply won’t. Say bye-bye to the business model.

It’s not too late for newspapers to pull themselves out of their current downward spiral, but doing so will require real soul searching about who they are and what their role is in a world increasingly dominated by internet-enabled devices that also serve up a bunch of content choices to their readers. For some ideas, see our IDEAS article, “Tomorrow’s News Today: Five Strategies For Survival”.