Revenue & Readership: Rescuing & Reviving Rural Journalism

The Business of News

There is a resurgence in scholarship focused on the “attention economy” of news (Myllylahti Citation2018, Citation2019; Simon Citation1971; Webster Citation2014). The digital era, of course, did not introduce the idea of fighting for consumers’ attention. As Vaidhyanathan (Citation2018, 84) wrote about journalism, “the mania to capture our attention began with the penny press.” This dates the concept to 1833, when Benjamin Day founded The Sun in New York City and charged one cent per issue, versus the six cents charged by most competitors. The goal was to make the newspaper more affordable to the general public, thereby putting more of an emphasis on advertising revenue to offset production costs and to draw more attention and more audience members to his newspaper. This advertiser-focused business model went largely unchanged—and unchallenged—for newspaper organizations for the better part of the next 170 years (Baldasty Citation1992). Newspaper organizations relied on print display and classified advertising, along with subscription and newsstand sales, to cover the high fixed costs of news production (Doyle Citation2009; Ryfe Citation2021). In turn, local businesses relied on the newspaper publications to run advertising, mostly because they had few other ways of reaching potential customers (Abernathy Citation2020). Thus, these revenue streams were the benefit of functioning in a fixed geographic market. The move to digital media, with its increased competition and decreased emphasis on fixed geographic locations, diminished advertising pricing power for news organizations and eliminated some advertising categories.

The Pew Research Center’s most recent data estimated that the advertising revenue for the newspaper industry in 2020 was $9.6 billion, a drop of 25% from 2019. The report estimated circulation revenue was $11.1 billion, surpassing advertising revenue for the first time since at least the 1950s. Advertising revenues have been siphoned off by social media and search engines, which account for as much as 80% of total advertising spent in many media markets (Hindman Citation2018; Myllylahti Citation2019). The platform takeover of the advertising market has contributed to what Pickard (Citation2020, 10) called the “evisceration of journalism.”

The overhaul of the news industry includes a monumental shift in organization ownership. For decades, newspaper “cash cows” brought in double-digit returns for their owners (Soloski Citation2019). But by the mid-1980s, about when newspaper circulation peaked in the United States (Chittum Citation2014), family-owned newspapers were bought by larger companies, removing local ownership from communities (Soloski Citation2019). We see this trend still today. As of May 2021, half of U.S. daily newspapers are owned by just seven corporations, including Gannett, which alone owns 500 daily and weekly publications (Tracy Citation2019). While a connection to a larger chain can lead to economies of scale, it can result in a lack of local flexibility (Ali et al. Citation2020). Outside purchases, especially those from hedge funds, often lead to aggressive cost-cutting and slashing of personnel or shuttering organizations entirely (Abernathy Citation2018). Since 2004, more than 500 rural newspapers have closed or folded into another title (Nicolaou, Fontanella-Khan, and Fortado Citation2019). Few studies—such as this current project—focus specifically on non-national chain news organizations (Finneman and Thomas Citation2021a, Citation2021b).

The sharp decline in advertising revenue has prompted—or forced—news organizations to consider new business models. Most focus on generating more revenue from readers. Methods include paywalls, memberships, subscriptions, or events (Chyi and Lee Citation2013). While there may be a demand for local news—three-quarters of Americans follow local news at least somewhat closely (Pew Citation2019)—there is a consensus that people generally are not willing to pay for digital news (Chyi and Ng Citation2020; Fletcher and Nielsen Citation2017; Myllylahti Citation2014). Scholars have argued the reluctance stems from a “free mentality” in which people assume digital news should not come at a cost (Kammer et al. Citation2015). Whereas much research on considerations of new business models, or willingness to pay, examine the news industry and audience members in isolation, this current study positions them together in a comparative discussion.

The predominance of the research and news headlines about the U.S. newspaper industry focuses on large daily news organizations. This is even though the majority of the nation’s newspapers are weeklies (Ali et al. Citation2020; Garfrerick Citation2010; Reader Citation2018). In the next section, we highlight some of the limited research on that rural newspaper scene.

Rural Weekly Newspapers

The conditions confronted by rural and weekly news organizations are distinct from those of larger newspapers. This is a fact often overlooked in academic work, where scholars frequently lump all news organizations together as part of the “newspaper industry” (Reader Citation2018), at best, or, at worst, dismiss the weekly newspapers as “smaller, low-quality versions of their larger daily counterparts” (Garfrerick Citation2010, 151). In short, the weekly newspaper segment is one, as scholars, “we know little about” (Ali et al. Citation2020, 454). As Ali and his colleagues (Citation2020, 454–455), write, “smaller publications face their own challenges and opportunities, and they define success and innovation on their own terms.” Weekly newspapers have a long history with distinctive connections to their communities. The weekly newspaper has been expected to serve as a local leader, a “guiding star in time of trouble, a counselor and a friend” (Safley Citation1930, 383). Such news organizations have a “nearness to people” (Byerly Citation1961, p. 25), with Rosenberry (Citation2012, 25) arguing the “defining characteristic of community journalism is the intimacy that the organizations and the people who practice it share with the institutions and individuals they cover.” Researchers have found this tight connection creates a sense of ownership for readers, a sense of “my newspaper” (Mathews Citation2021a). Moreover, it has been found that newspapers are the most significant source for local stories in a given market, despite their economic struggles (Mahone et al. Citation2019). One study analyzed 100 randomly selected communities, with more than 16,000 stories from 663 local media outlets (newspapers, television stations, radio stations and online-only publications). Local newspapers accounted for a quarter of the outlets, but nearly 60% of the local news stories in the sample (Mahone et al. Citation2019). Therefore, local newspapers, especially in rural communities, produce a majority of all news about said community, which helps explain that “nearness” (Byerly, Citation1961).

The “nearness” can cause complications—with content, readers, and potential advertisers—as reporters’ professional identities are intertwined with their personal identities as community members. Smith (Citation2019, 533) found that weekly journalists “must constantly and simultaneously engage with and participate in the community on a personal and professional level.” As such, rural and weekly news organizations have been criticized for deferential treatment of local power leaders (Ferrucci and Alaimo Citation2020; Wenzel Citation2020), and for excluding people of color in coverage at the expense of white officials and community leaders (Mathews Citation2021b). Researchers have found that smaller news organizations cater to business leaders and advertisers, avoiding critical content that might lead to withdrawal of revenue (Richards Citation2013). Instead, smaller news organizations tend to favor journalistic boosterism, or “everyday news that highlights the positive qualities of local environments” (Gutsche Citation2015, 499). This is not a new notion, as Janowitz (Citation1952, 283) observed “the maintenance of community consensus by the community press is built on the emphasis of common values rather than on the solution of conflicting values.” The business side of weekly newspapers also is different than larger news organizations. Metropolitan or regional newspapers more frequently employ a strict “church and state” division between editorial and business departments, while weekly newspaper reporters might sell advertising (Smith Citation2019), or rely on advertisers as story sources (Ferrucci and Alaimo Citation2020). Ownership, too, matters in smaller communities, where journalists and readers alike bemoan the lack of local ownership (Mathews and Ali Citation2022; Smith Citation2019).

One aspect that is the same between readers of all newspapers is a demand for immediate and frequent news and information updates in digital spaces. This was brought to the foreground during the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers found that weekly journalists struggled to break their historic work routines (Finneman and Thomas Citation2021a). This specific struggle is just one illustration of the difficulties with change, particularly technological, seen at news organizations (Ferrucci and Perreault Citation2021).

Theory of Disruptive Innovation

Innovation has never been considered a strength of the news industry (Argyris Citation1974; Belair-Gagnon and Steinke Citation2020; Mari Citation2019). Researchers have argued this reluctance is a “complacency with their industry status” (Boyles Citation2016, 233), or an overly strong connection to historical normative processes (Ryfe Citation2009). Despite its long history with technological changes, the journalism industry, most particularly rural weeklies, typically struggles with adopting new technologies, something inevitable in organizations reliant on historic professional norms (Stinchcombe Citation1965). For journalism, any significant change can be considered a disruptive innovation due its tightly controlled boundaries of practice (Ferrucci and Perreault Citation2021). Importantly, innovation does not necessarily only refer to technology, but also includes the “processes by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, and information into products and services of greater value” (Christensen Citation2003, xvii). In other words, “it is not the technology itself that creates innovation, but rather the processes catalyzed by the technologies” (Ferrucci and Perreault Citation2022, 3). The news industry’s struggles with innovation, in part, are because organizations frequently do not employ people fluent in emerging technologies, but rather in current technologies (Stinchcombe Citation1965). This is something Stinchcombe (Citation1965) dubbed the liability of newness, meaning organizations hire personnel based on their mastery of the processes currently in place, not what the future may hold in terms of innovation. For journalism, this means, especially in the last couple decades, any innovation is met with a professional workforce almost entirely illiterate with how a particular innovation, technological or otherwise, could be adopted and optimally utilized (Ferrucci and Perreault Citation2021).

After conducting a synthesis of academic research attempting to comprehend how disruptive innovations affects industries and organizations, Christensen (Citation2003) developed the theory of disruptive innovation, which contends both that market forces strongly influence innovation, and that more stable fields, such as journalism, struggle to adapt. Essentially, a field such as journalism with its intractable market model for almost two centuries and normative values, over time, develops stringent and calcified normative practices, which means those industries are not nearly nimble enough to adapt seamlessly (King and Baatartogtokh Citation2015). As previously noted, these innovations can theoretically cause such disruption that organizations must become almost entirely new entities to effectively implement them (Stinchcombe Citation1965). This is especially true when discussing potential innovations within news organizations concerning new forms of revenue streams, an economic disruption that simply cannot be separated from the technological expertise needed for implementation.

As discussed above, newspapers have continued to rely on print advertising and distribution models instead of developing new, sustainable digital revenue models. When confronted with the digital changes and the economic downturn, legacy newspapers lacked the ability to respond immediately and clung to traditional journalistic routines (Shoemaker and Vos Citation2009). Thus, while many journalism studies or management scholars have called on journalism to diversify its revenue streams due to impending economic downturns (e.g., Kaye and Quinn Citation2010), most of said work lacks the proper empathy needed to understand that most journalistic organizations, especially smaller rural weeklies, are simply not equipped with the expertise—or resources—to implement such innovations (Ferrucci and Perreault Citation2022; Sylvie and Witherspoon Citation2002).

Informed by the scholarship discussed above, and with a goal toward better understanding how the two stakeholder groups—newspaper publishers and readers—view the feasibility of various revenue streams for news organizations, this study attempts to disentangle how viable publishers perceive various clear disruptive innovations to their market model, versus how readers perceive their willingness to support these various disruptive innovations. With this in mind, this paper aims to answer the following research questions:

The Publishers Survey

Using both academic literature and industry trade magazine publications on the subject, the researchers created a list of 16 possible funding options that included strategies that weekly publishers currently use, as well as well-publicized newer strategies. Publishers were told to check all the options that they would be willing to consider. Strategies listed were office supplies, print subscriptions, graphic design services, commercial printing, e-newsletters, memberships, marketing services, legal notices, grants, government support, foundations/large donors, events, donations, digital subscriptions, and advertising. The survey also collected demographic information about the publisher and their news organizations (e.g., age, gender, geographic location).

The researchers then asked two project partners—the South Dakota Newspaper Association and the Kansas Press Association—to share the survey with other state newspaper associations across the nation and encourage them to pass it along to their newspaper-owner members to fill out. As an incentive for participation, those who included an email address at the end of the survey were entered in drawings for 10 Amazon gift cards worth $100 each. The researchers opened the survey in December 2021 and January 2022, and then emailed several reminders for state newspaper associations to ask their members to complete it. Due to higher participation in Great Plains states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas), the researchers narrowed their scope of analysis to this geographic area.

Overall, the survey generated 106 completed results (although some participants chose not to answer some demographic questions): 17 from North Dakota, 22 from South Dakota, 30 from Nebraska, and 37 from Kansas. The 106 participants owned a total of 176 newspapers. The majority of responding publishers’ newspapers operate in towns with fewer than 5000 people (88.1%). Furthermore, 51% of respondents were female. Broken down by age, 17.1% were under age 40, 46.6% were 41–60, and 36.2% were 61 or older, with Table 1 providing a state breakdown and Table 2 providing a gender breakdown. Table 3 illustrates the population sizes served by these publishers.

The survey also asked all publishers for general demographic information about their newspapers. The majority of newspapers have a website (84.9%), have an e-edition (76.7%), and publish on a weekly basis (95.3%).

The Readers Survey

The researchers then hired a professional audience research company, Coda Ventures, to conduct a survey to understand the perspectives of rural residents in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas, and their willingness to pay for news. The intent was to discover the level of support that readers (or potential readers) had for various newspaper funding mechanisms and then make comparisons to how weekly publishers from the same states responded in the initial survey. The researchers provided Coda Ventures with the survey questions to generate comparative data to the initial survey as well as to create new data for future research. The company’s sole directive was to find U.S. Census-based representative participants from the four Great Plains states to complete the survey in January and February 2022. To keep the survey focused on rural audiences, Coda Ventures was specifically told to find participants in towns with populations under 10,000, thereby avoiding metro areas such as Fargo, Sioux Falls, Omaha, and Wichita. To recruit participants, Coda worked with another company, Schlesinger, which has a panel of millions of people who are pre-qualified and have agreed to take online studies. For this study, people received an email invitation to take the survey. Coda set quotas based on zip codes, age, and gender demographics. Respondents started the study by entering their zip code, gender, and age. If they met the quota qualification, they then continued with the survey. While certainly other demographic information may be useful, such as income and political party, Coda noted age and gender were the best and most statistically sound quotas to set due to the challenges of acquiring the needed sample size and the widespread hesitancy of some survey participants to report income.

The survey included collecting basic demographics as well as answers to a series of 13 questions related to participants’ newspaper reading habits, their willingness to financially support the newspaper industry (and how), and their opinions on newspaper content. Questions were a mix of multiple choice, Likert-scale, and open-ended short answer. Financial questions included whether the participant would financially support their local newspaper beyond a subscription, if they would provide financial support if they knew their local newspaper was struggling to stay open, and what would make them more likely to financially support the newspaper. Likert-scale questions asked participants about their level of willingness to provide financial support via each of these 12 strategies: taxpayer support, print subscriptions, ads, digital subscriptions, donations, events, memberships, e-newsletters, marketing services, graphic design services, office supplies, and/or commercial printing.

The survey generated 414 results: 103 from North Dakota, 100 from South Dakota, 108 from Nebraska and 103 from Kansas. Most participants (327) live in communities with populations under 4000, while 70 lived in communities over 4000. Seventeen participants said they did not know their community’s population. About 51% of respondents were female, a ratio in line with U.S. Census data (50.5%). Broken down by age, 23.4% were ages 18–34, 28.7% were 35–-54, 18% were 55–64, and 29% were ages 65 or older, resulting in an overrepresentation of senior citizens (Census and state demographics = about 17%). The researchers then ran cross-comparisons to further understand willingness to pay for local news within these rural populations.

Weekly Publishers and Revenue Preferences

Regardless of tax-filing status, news organizations can utilize multiple revenue streams. Of the publishers who answered a question about taxation status, 96.6% operated for-profit newspapers. Only three nonprofit newspapers were included in the surveyed publishers across the four states. The publishers surveyed also oversee newspapers that overwhelmingly (96.5%) publish print editions; therefore, less than a handful of all publishers oversee digitally-native news organizations. Fundamentally, the publishers surveyed manage news organizations that resemble the financial model of news popularized and fossilized in the late nineteenth century (Baldasty Citation1992). These newspapers rely primarily on advertising and subscriptions for revenue, with Table 4 breaking down all of their financial methods.

The majority of the newspapers represented in the survey rely on traditional, historical funding streams. However, unlike the more mainstream relatively new funding streams employed by more metropolitan U.S. news organizations—such as membership models (Price Citation2020), foundation grants (Scott, Bunce, and Wright Citation2019) or crowdfunding (Aitamurto Citation2011)—rural news organizations rely on revenue from activities such as graphic design services (39.2%), commercial printing services (48.1%), or office supply sales (20.4%). This illustrates how these newspapers are willing to think broadly about diversifying revenue streams, but that these activities primarily revolve around selling the public services already done in-house at the newspaper. Furthermore, these are strategies that weeklies in Great Plains states have used for decades, with the data as a whole illustrating a reluctance to try any contemporary innovation.

The second part of the first research question asked newspaper publishers which revenue streams they perceived as viable in their respective communities, as illustrated in Table 5. Unsurprisingly, the majority believed that advertising, subscriptions, and legal notices remained the most viable revenue streams, thereby enforcing the theory of disruptive innovation and journalism’s struggle to adapt. Meaningfully, though, while 100% of newspapers rely on advertising currently, only 85.1% of those believe that advertising is viable, perhaps signifying a tacit acknowledgement of dwindling revenue from advertising. Also of note is that these publishers perceive services such as graphic design, commercial printing, and marketing are more viable than current revenue streams used widely in metro journalism, such as events, newsletters, foundation grants, etc. Fundamentally, it seems, publishers do not believe revenue streams that simply rely on journalism already happening—membership, newsletters, various types of grants—are nearly as viable as ones that involve added services to the audience or community.

Rural Readers and Revenue Preferences

After the researchers collected publisher responses, rural readers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas were then asked similar questions to gauge their opinions on the business model for newspapers to answer our second research question. Notably, rural residents responded strikingly different than the publishers, indicating a disconnect between weekly newspapers’ financial strategies and what readers are willing to support as illustrated in Table 6.

Events were the #1 choice by rural residents for providing additional revenue to newspapers, illustrating a strategy already made popular by news outlets such as The Texas Tribune and historically used by U.S. newspaper titans Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst (see Moore and Gabriele Citation2022). The popularity of this option is not surprising coming from rural areas where “there’s nothing to do,” and arguably provides an opportunity for newspapers to fill a central community engagement role in person, not just in print. The second option that rural residents were very likely or somewhat likely to support was print subscriptions, adding further evidence that print is still a mainstay in rural America. E-newsletters, memberships, and donations rounded out the top five—a striking contrast to the publishers, who ranked e-newsletters and memberships toward the bottom of their choices. Also of note is that digital subscriptions ranked substantially lower with readers (35%) than publishers (75%). While it might seem incongruous that readers desire innovative measures such as e-newsletters but do not seem to want digital subscriptions, this actually makes sense. Many rural news organizations utilize digital subscriptions that are essentially only a PDF version of the print product. Readers, historically, find PDFs of newspapers not engaging, not something worth much time (Ferrucci and Alaimo Citation2020), and, therefore, not innovative.

In qualitative comments, some readers provided further explanation of their support for e-newsletters and events. A Kansas woman between the ages of 55 and 64 in a town of 2001–3000 people said she wanted to get news more than once a week, indicating it was no longer sufficient to wait for the weekly printed paper to know what was going on. A Nebraska man in the 18–34 age group had the same suggestion: “My local newspaper doesn’t print often enough to really keep up with current events unless they are super specific to the region. Maybe if they put out a paper more often.” An 18–34 Nebraska woman also wanted “more than a once-a-week newspaper.” This is positive for weeklies that readers have an urgency for local news and should prompt consideration of an e-newsletter that delivers news more often. This also suggests that readers are more apt to want innovation.

Other comments specifically mentioned events. A 55–64 Kansas woman said she “would support local events that sponsor the local paper.” A male Kansas senior citizen said he would attend “some kind of special event they would sponsor.” Two North Dakota women in the 18–34 age group from different towns also said they would go to fundraiser events to help financially support their local newspapers. The events revenue strategy goes beyond the tightly controlled boundaries of practice that most newspapers are accustomed to, yet these readers are pushing for innovation to entice them to provide more financial support for local news.

To further understand reader attitudes and their willingness to fund newspapers, survey participants in the four Great Plains states answered various additional questions. Interestingly, only one in five people in towns with a population of 500 or fewer knew a journalist, providing further evidence of a disconnect between journalism and the most rural portions of the United States. About half of residents in towns of 1000–4000 knew their local journalists. This matters because the researchers compared how many people said they knew journalists with those who said they would be willing to financially support their local newspaper beyond a subscription. Across all four states, readers were twice as likely to say they would provide additional funding if they knew a journalist. This was particularly striking in South Dakota where 62.5% of those who knew a local journalist would pay beyond a subscription compared to 26.5% who don’t know one. Notably, a Nebraska woman in the 18–34 age group from a town of 1001–2000 noted in later qualitative comments that newspapers should do more outreach so people in the community know who the journalists are. She suggested “occasional meet and greets with the employees. Easier to partner with people rather than a business.” Although historically there has been an industry-implemented barrier between editorial and advertising, these findings emphasize the role that journalists themselves play in serving as ambassadors for bringing in additional revenue, and the need to innovate from tightly controlled boundaries of practice.

From a statewide perspective, 38% of all respondents in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas said they would help if their newspaper was financially struggling, with 49% of North Dakotans agreeing. An additional 25% of respondents in North Dakota and South Dakota, and 37% in Nebraska and Kansas, were unsure. In other words, between 62 and 75% of respondents in each state would either help or consider helping their newspaper if they knew it was financially struggling. This highlights the critical importance of newsrooms being transparent with readers about their finances and pursuing additional revenue strategies. We further broke down by age and gender those who would be willing to provide more financial help to their newspaper if they knew it was struggling and found men (47.3%) more supportive than women (34%). Why that is the case is unclear and worthy of future analysis. Another notable finding breaks the common belief that only older Americans support newspapers. Residents ages 18–54 across all four states were more willing to help their newspaper than those over age 55 (102 yes answers vs. 66 yes answers). Specifically, the 18–34 demographic that most assume doesn’t support local newspapers provided 29% of the “yes” answers. The “dad” demographic of men ages 35–54 was most supportive of paying more to help local news. Overall, these findings contradict many historic assumptions provided as reasons to cling to historical normative practices and illustrate modern readers as a market force that supports innovation.

Reader Motivation for Financial Support

Readers were also asked to supply qualitative comments to the question, “What would make you more likely to financially support your local newspaper?” This offers further understanding of our second research question and how readers explain their willingness to financially support potential news revenue streams for newspapers. About two dozen respondents—particularly senior citizens—said they were on a limited income, and 66 of the 414 respondents wrote “nothing.” About a dozen additional negative responses referred to the words truth, liberal, biased, and/or Democrat, with men three times as likely to voice concerns related to liberal media than women did. Still, as noted above, the majority of respondents were willing to help or consider it. Two main themes emerged on how to better financially engage readers: appealing to their altruism and improving newspaper content.

Altruistic motivation. Many respondents said they would financially support their newspaper simply because they wanted to be of help, a trend that emerged across states, age ranges, and town size. A Kansas man between ages 18–34 wrote, “If they were in financial trouble, I’m always here to help the community.” A 35–54 Nebraska woman said, “just knowing they need it would make me want to support them.” An 18–34 South Dakota woman said she would help because “I like to support local business.” A 35–54 Nebraska man would pay more “to make sure it stays open for business so others can keep their jobs.” A North Dakota male senior citizen said, “I would do whatever I could financially to help out our local paper.” An 18–34 Nebraska man said, “The fact that I support local business, they're important.” A 35–54 Kansas woman said she would pay more “if I knew they were struggling financially.”

Some shared personal stories of altruistic attachment, such as a 55–64 Kansas man from a town of 3001–4000: “They have been a fixture in the community since my grandmother was young. Myself as well as many of my friends are already prepared to do practically anything to support our paper. My town is like that.” A 35–54 North Dakota man in a town of fewer than 500 people said he would help “just to keep it going in a small town … I love all our small town news, so I'd do all I can to keep it going.” An 18–34 South Dakota woman in a town of 1001–2000 said she would help “because we all enjoy having a paper and I don’t think I’d like it if they didn’t exist cause I wouldn’t know anything for my kids for school.” A senior citizen South Dakota woman from a town of 4001–5000 said “knowing they needed help, I would gladly support our local newspaper and would also do some fundraising to help out.” These responses indicate that readers are indeed willing to go beyond the boundaries of the newspaper industry’s current business model if given an opportunity to do so and made aware of the need for their increased financial support.

Consumer motivation. Many survey respondents indicated they would be willing to give more financial support if newspapers made changes to improve their service, illustrating newspapers need to do more than just change fundamental revenue streams but also consider changes to journalistic content routines to bring in more money. Readers indicated this through a variety of survey responses: (1) through qualitative comments in response to the question “What would make you more likely to financially support your local newspaper?” (2) by reviewing a list of a dozen newspaper beats and checking all that applied when asked “What topics are you most interested in your local newspaper covering?” and (3) through qualitative comments in response to the question “How could your local newspaper improve its content?”

In regard to content priorities, rural readers’ #1 choice was obituaries/birth announcements/marriage announcements, which have long been staples of weekly newspapers. Feature stories ranked second while a “things to do” calendar and crime reports tied for third. A notable finding was that only 27% checked that they were interested in opinion content. In fact, based on the qualitative comments provided, some readers suggested that editors giving opinions in the paper made them less likely to support it, particularly if the editor was perceived as being liberal to conservative readers. A Kansas senior citizen in a town of fewer than 500 people wrote she wanted to see “a change of attitude of the newspaper. Lately they have been insensitive and rude in some of their editorial content.” A female Nebraska senior citizen in a town of 2001–3000 wanted her newspaper to be more nonpartisan “but that’s probably asking too much in this area.” A 35–54 North Dakota man in a town of 501–1000 said he wanted a new editor: “I come from a very conservative area, but the local paper [name redacted] has a quite liberal Democrat for its editor.” A 35–54 Nebraska man from a town of under 500 “would like to see more relevant information and less bias opinions.” A North Dakota female senior citizen in a town of 501–1000 put it directly: “less editor opinion.” About half of these respondents knew the journalists at their newspaper while the other half didn’t. Regardless, the low number of people who quantitatively expressed interest in opinion content is worthy of additional reflection by weekly editors who, for centuries now, have relied on opinion as a normative practice.

Many other readers said they were fine with their newspaper’s current content or weren’t sure what else could be done to improve it. Others suggested adding more business reporting, local history articles, children’s pages, coupons, comics, and crossword puzzles. An 18–34 Nebraska woman wanted to see more stories that appealed to her age range, a comment echoed by two other Kansan women and a Nebraska man of the same age bracket. Several comments from across states wanted to see more content in their weekly newspaper, illustrating a continued level of importance for local news. A 35–54 male Nebraska man from a town of 1001–2000 had a full wish list:

A female senior citizen in Kansas wanted better coverage of local events like city council meetings. A North Dakota female senior citizen from a town of 1001–2000 said, “I would support and subscribe to the newspaper if it had any substantial content besides a couple of editorial columns and the school sports.” A Nebraska female senior citizen said she would support the paper if it “actually ha[d] local news in it,” a comment that came up from multiple people. Resistance to innovation is clearly costing newspapers additional revenue from readers not bound by historic restrictive practices and limiting potential to increase news coverage that would attract further readers and revenue.