Can The L.A. Times Be Saved?

Implications: The answer to this question is: Yes. However, for those who are yearning for the L.A. Times to survive without undergoing change, I think they will be disappointed.

Analysis: In the restructuring business, corporate survival does not mean survival without change.  In fact, change is a fundamental component of restructuring.

I sympathize with all of the employees of the L.A. Times.  Things will get worse before they get better.  However, what choice does Zell have?

I am not defending Sam Zell because he is more than capable of doing that himself.  But the paper is a business.  Gone are the days when news outlets; newspapers or even television stations, were run as cost centers.  Maybe news should be treated as a cost center, but who is going to pay for it?

Newspapers make their money via a number of ways; advertising, classifieds, and consumer purchases of the papers.  When none of these things generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of operating the news paper what do you do?

Critics have derided the idea of localizing the news and even focusing on niche markets.  I disagree.  Local news is important.  National news is important but regular people worry about what is going on in their community.  See my past analyses:

    -    “Zell and Media – Newspapers Need to be Profitable - Tailor The Papers”
    -    “A Sign of the Times for Printed Newspapers? “

Will this mean that the Times will be different?  The answer is Yes.

Will the Times be better?  The answer is:  It all depends on what you like.

Unless someone has a better idea on how to get people to buy more newspapers, either stop dumping on Zell or tell him how to do it right.