The print media crisis has sharpened our focus on survival strategies, at least in theory. It is becoming increasingly clear that two tracks are diverging: the free publicity of the quickly made and quickly discarded consumer papers - and the immersion in the local and/or the qualitative. The market confirms that both have a chance. The continuing success of 20 Minuten and the progress of Blick am Abend confirm the one assertion, while the stable situation of many B titles in the regions, as well as conspicuous success stories such as Hamburger Zeit, confirm the other.
In an uncomfortable position are the papers that until now have wanted to be for everyone: the larger A titles, daily newspapers that have felt responsible for both the universe and the immediate surroundings plus the most important (i.e. most newsworthy) subject areas, from cars to fashion to vacations and real estate, with the same claim to exclusivity. Here, the cost-cutting measures that the editorial offices are forced to implement already look like acts of desperation, and they are primarily at the expense of freelance journalists - not because this is where the biggest problem or the most savings potential lies, but because this is where savings can be made most easily and, above all, most quickly. Even in the best houses, fees have been cut by up to two thirds!
How is this supposed to go together? On the one hand, the insight that only deepening and individualization are suitable in the long term to differentiate the convenience product from the quality paper, on the other hand, the clear-cutting in the very places where the paper would be particularly strong and storm-proof.

You can read Karl Lüönd's full commentary in the current issue of Advertising Week print edition.

The print media crisis has sharpened our focus on survival strategies, at least in theory. It is becoming increasingly clear that two tracks are diverging: the free publicity of the quickly made and quickly discarded consumer papers - and the immersion in the local and/or the qualitative. The market confirms that both have a chance. The continuing success of 20 Minuten and the progress of Blick am Abend confirm the one assertion, while the stable situation of many B titles in the regions, as well as conspicuous success stories such as Hamburger Zeit, confirm the other.
In an uncomfortable position are the papers that until now have wanted to be for everyone: the larger A titles, daily newspapers that have felt responsible for both the universe and the immediate surroundings plus the most important (i.e. most newsworthy) subject areas, from cars to fashion to vacations and real estate, with the same claim to exclusivity. Here, the cost-cutting measures that the editorial offices are forced to implement already look like acts of desperation, and they are primarily at the expense of freelance journalists - not because this is where the biggest problem or the most savings potential lies, but because this is where savings can be made most easily and, above all, most quickly. Even in the best houses, fees have been cut by up to two thirds!
How is this supposed to go together? On the one hand, the insight that only deepening and individualization are suitable in the long term to differentiate the convenience product from the quality paper, on the other hand, the clear-cutting in the very places where the paper would be particularly strong and storm-proof.
The other gap has long since opened up in human resources. Hardly a week goes by without the departure of journalists from the media to interest-based communication (read: PR, corporate publishing, press spokespeople, etc.) being reported. Andreas Durisch (SonntagsZeitung) has become a PR consultant, Annette Bundi (Tages-Anzeiger) now speaks for President Leuthard, Roland Schlumpf (Tages-Anzeiger) has joined Interpharma, Susanne Mühlemann (Bilanz) is going to Swiss. You can already tell from these names: The managers who are now taking advantage of the favorable opportunity to help themselves in the editorial offices are like Oscar Wilde: they have very simple tastes, they always go for the better ...
Now there are certainly good arguments for such changes, and as we all know, you only know a zoo once you have lived on both sides of the bars. But something else gives food for thought: In most larger editorial offices, jobs have been cut by 15 to 40 percent in the last three years. If you had asked me five years ago, I would have easily said that you could save 10 to 15 percent of capacity in every newsroom through better organization (or free it up for clever projects). In the meantime, the "fat" is long gone, and it is happily being cut into the living.
On the other hand, the communications industry is growing unrestrainedly and investing accordingly. Not only listed companies, but also SMEs (especially knowledge-based and internationally active companies with products and services that require explanation), as well as public institutions (from the police to art galleries), associations, aid organizations, public authorities, etc., have feudal communications departments.
I recently met someone who is responsible for professional communications for the schools in a Zurich conurbation (still working 50% for the time being). A medium-sized Swiss business association has seven people working in communications. Ten years ago, one was enough. The two Zurich universities of applied sciences alone currently produce around 200 communication specialists per year.
The consequence is clear: the media editorial offices, which should actually be filtering and processing the (often very useful!) input from interest group communication, are becoming weaker and weaker - the interest group representatives, on the other hand, are arming themselves like world champions. On the media side, there is a growing willingness to make do with the ready-to-cook convenience products from the PR kitchens - and at the same time, they actually wanted to secure their future through in-depth research and their own efforts.