Tribune should put the readers it has first

The argument that the Chicago Tribune has been alienating, rather than attracting, readers since its change of ownership was supported with strong evidence Monday.

It was hardly surprising to learn when the nation's newspaper circulation numbers were released that the Tribune had suffered some significant losses. According to a story in Crain's Chicago Business online edition, which cited figures released by Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Tribune lost 7.75 percent of its circulation over a six-month period that closed in September. The national average was 4.6 percent.

The Tribune also lost 5.8 percent of its Sunday subscribers against a national average of 4.8 percent.

Since Johannes Gutenberg, newspapers have been trying to figure out how to grow circulation. Those efforts, in recent years, have centered more on trying to modernize the look of the everyday product even as editorial staffs have shrunk, news hole has shrunk, and even the dimensions of the newsprint have shrunk. Though the Tribune would have everyone believe otherwise, they did not invent the idea of jazzing up the product to attract young or new customers.

And the early returns would indicate that not only is it not working, this redesign is also managing to alienate many of the paper's long-time readers.

One of the great fears of business people is losing customers without knowing why. Ask yourself why you stopped going to a particular retailer after a bad experience or some other disappointment. Unless you stopped to tell the owner or manager about your concerns, they have no idea why you never came back.

The Tribune, on the other hand, has the benefit of an avalanche of feedback on its recent changes. The redesign has been discussed not only on local radio, but also online following nearly every news story about the paper on numerous sites. While there have been some compliments, the complaints are running about 20-1 ahead.

More to the point, the compliments that have been registered are coming from people who currently subscribe. There's been little evidence of anyone saying, "I love the new look. I think I'll start subscribing."

It's also troubling to hear that subscribers are sharing their thoughts directly with the publisher and editors through letters, e-mails and voice mails with little or no response from these executives. There's no more effective way to say "I don't care about you" than to ignore you.

It's not the look, really, that's at issue. It's what the look represents, a change that dismisses current readers.

The new generation of Tribune executives would be advised to learn what the writers and line editors in the newspaper learned a long time ago: It's not the look that attracts or alienates readers, it's the content. Readers know when things are being taken away. They know when a favorite feature is missing. They know when a meeting isn't covered. They also read the news from other sources that tell them when the staff or expenses are being trimmed. Modern trends indicate that consumers want better and more. Price is less a consideration than quality and quantity.

Newspaper are still the best source for depth and breadth on the wide variety of issues that people face in their everyday lives. Communities fortunate enough to support newspapers benefit from the scrutiny of a motivated watchdog, even if it doesn't necessarily show in every edition.

Where we all lose is when the people who are supposed to be working in the paper's best interest fall into the trap of placing style at a higher priority than substance. Certainly no newspaper would tolerate an elected official doing the same. In newspapering, the bottom line should be less about the numbers that follow the dollar sign and more about the community -- and readers -- it serves.