I have a column coming out in a few weeks in which I argue that Dallas Morning News publisher Jim Moroney must get right the enormous task before him: finding a new editor to lead his paper for the next decade. I give voice to those who express concerns about Moroney’s track record, but I ultimately believe he’s doing the best job he can in such a turbulent industry. (I like the guy. SUE ME!)
A new example of his innovation (or his deck-chair rearranging, if you believe his critics): His efforts to partner with other top newspapers across the nation. If you’re a news junkie, you should read the whole thing, but here are the money graphs from this story:
Jim Moroney, Dallas Morning News publisher and CEO, […] plans to start selling the special [New York] Times section to his Sunday subscribers this fall, after completing talks with the Times. After a four-week sampling period. The Morning News would charge $1.99 a week for the section, sharing revenue, as does the Toronto Star, with the Times. The Times is calling the program its Opt-In Model. Expect more dailies to talk to the Times about the program as well, as the company decides how and how much to expand the model in the U.S.
Moroney, the fastest newspaper diversifier in the West (or East), won’t stop there. He’ll separately offer his readers a second paid print supplement — that of The Washington Post. When Moroney first heard of the free, digital add-on Post partner program, he said he’d sign on — but wanted a paid print offer as well. The Post’s Steve Hills agreed, and that supplement — focused on national and political news — will likewise debut this fall, priced at 99 cents a week, with reader revenue split between the parties. While the Post was at first reluctant to create and offer the 16-24 page tab, it agreed and is now in the process of extending the print deal to other newspapers.
My guess: Don’t think for a second that Moroney sees this as more than a band-aid for declining print revenues. He made clear in our talk that a) digital revenues will never grow fast enough to replace said declining print revenues, and b) he’s committed to finding new revenue streams (through investment or acquisition) that leverage the paper’s brand and content. (Five such entities started in 2012 alone.) In the meantime, he’s experimenting by seeing if readers will really pay for more content, no matter which paper wrote it. Which makes complete sense.
