I really enjoy the fact that York's newspapers are printed regularly. Not only am I more likely to pick one up and read more articles than I would online, but it creates an instant discussion point with people around you.

The editing team put an immense amount of effort into each paper, so I think it's justified if they enjoy seeing their names in print.

Totally agree, and to prove it we'll be liveblogging the protests tomorrow in London at http://live.ele.ph/Event/March_For_The_Alternative at a rate and level of quality that print media can only dream of :)

Forget two weeks to print, how about two seconds to publication: text, video, audio and photo, all online as and when it happens, keeping the viewer involved and a part of the event.

@James - I heard the Tab was on the up and Varsity went down the pan - good luck with it - I thought the page 3 totty thing was boss.

I agree with Samuel that to have a total shift from print to online for student newspapers is to assume that the reader holds blind loyalty to that paper. That assumption is based on another assumption that you are totally fulfilling the student populations needs enough that no matter the platform they will still read.

Again I agree with Samuel about reading the paper to pass time. Whilst writing for Redbrick several people told me that not everything in the paper is relevant to them. They told me they would read it to kill time rather than actually seek the paper out to find out the latest issues surrounding them.

In my opinion, to entertain such a drastic shift would be a dangerous blow to student media itself. The student newspaper is the more traditional media platform than TV or radio, for example. Nobody can shy away from the fact that journalism is moving away from print and towards online but to dish out a total change in regime so haphazardly could be fatal.

Haha I don't think you'd spend 10 minutes on Varsity anymore. Not only is the quality down from a few years ago, but they only do 16 pages now. You'd struggle to read it for 5!

1. The idea of printing 5-day old news and expecting people to be in any way enthused is like woah. The printers are taking the mick.
2. When you have interviews (and I'm not talking about community management or other journaffiliated posts), people prefer newspaper cuttings. I have drawn a handy Paul Bradshaw-esque infographic showing interviewers' excitement over cuttings in the online and print mediums:
Print: *******************
Online: **
3. The student papers that are successful treat getting ads/funding like a business, and they see the newspaper itself as a 'product' in the traditional sense. As with any product, if it serves no purpose, it dies.

I've enjoyed reading this week's Hacks stuff on student media, about how the product is diversifying and so forth. But I will say something that may depress you. While I was at Nouse I was probably the most avid consumer of other student newspapers. Those I was sent were divided into the following piles:

10 min flick through:
Varsity

Cursory glance:
Cherwell
Forge
Leeds
Exepose

Recycling bin:
everything else

It would let me get a feel for the newspaper, what kind of structure it has and so on. it's always nice to see what the physical paper looks like, particularly to show any advertisers etc. It'd take about 2 minutes to upload on yet would add another reason to visit the site and also an easily accessible archive, if I want to know what was in an issue from last November, there's no easy way of finding out apart from going through the archive for news, then comment, then sport etc.

Also, at the minute I have no idea what content is from the paper, what is online exclusive (if anything), in fact there's nothing at present to suggest there is a physical paper, certainly no details of when it comes out, how often and, most importantly, where I can get a copy on campus!

There's plenty of stuff that needs doing with the website Adam but I do welcome your input.

What do you think putting PDFs of the newspaper would add?

Something I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that you shouldn't be afraid of cutting the number of pages to increase the quality in the paper. Unfortunately your website doesn't have viewable copies of the physical paper (something you should probably look into doing) so I can't really judge the paper itself.

Taking a cut on the pages would perhaps give you that bit extra cash needed to get the paper off the ground and also allow more investment in the website which is a little sparse and hard to navigate at present. There's no reason you can't do print and online well together, in fact if you're having a serious look at your media then it's probably best to do them together and get it all joined up. One thing you need to also do is explain what PR1 is, from your site there's a logo in the corner which links to a tumblr page that hasn't been updated in 3 months, not good!

Some stats for you:

The size of the UCLan student population: 35,000
The size of the UCLan journalism student population: 500
The size of the Pluto and PR1 editorial team: 12

The effect of this is twofold. It means that those who are involved as editors not only have a lot more work to put into each issue, it also means that they also become disillusioned with the whole process themselves as there's very little rewards for their efforts.

Anyone who's spoken about getting more people involved and focusing on quality content; that's a no-brainer, but it's predicated on the idea that both go hand in hand and are easy to achieve.

Set up something at Oxbridge, and you have a range of people who are engaged; politically, professionally and artistically at the highest level. Staffing at said institutions shouldn't be a problem.

For a university that struggles to reach 2,000 votes a year in its annual student elections, it's rather more of a pipe dream. I don't think people quite understand the struggle that many student editors go through if they're basing their assumptions on anecdotal and personal experiences.

There's a cycle that we are trying hard to break. UCLan is a politically apathetic campus. There's an apathy towards all matters to do with the SU not just student media. We'll be lucky if votes in the elections that are being announced tomorrow totals more than 2,000.

I think it'd be worth us concentrating online and getting relevant news up straight away. We can't change the culture overnight.

Adam your point about removing incentive by taking away the paper is a very good one, and one I thought about when I was writing the blog post.

I really do appreciate all the feedback I've received to this post though. I'll make sure our new editor read them.

The persuasive arguments for moving from print to web are positive, not negative. Web journalism allows you to link to sources, to keep the information up-to-date and to engage directly with readers through comments.

Those are the positive arguments. However, the grand themes of the demise of print journalism do not apply (entirely) to student newspapers. If your circulation is low, if you're unable to gain a presence on campus or to keep your publication relevant, say for a week, in the case of a weekly, then the fault is with the editors, not with the medium.

Obviously, this is not a case of one or the other, a combination of web and print is ideal in my opinion.

"...it’s very easy for students to pick up copies of Pluto. We have hundreds left over every fortnight."

If you print 2,000 copies and have hundreds left then you have real issues with either your content or distribution. If the content is the problem, then it doesn't matter if it's online or offline, nobody will read crap journalism.

If distribution is the problem then you need to rethink where and when you're distributing your newspapers. As stated above, if your newspaper is taking that long to be printed the first thing you need to do is change the printer. Having a paper every fortnight isn't a problem, I know of papers which are less regular than that yet still have engaging features and are popular on campus. Why don't you try spending a morning handing them out on campus when your next issue comes out?

I worry when you say "In the current structure in which we work we can’t produce a newspaper with actual news in it." because a student newspaper should be focussing on student news, a lot of which you should be first to break. You need to work on getting proper student news, if you put more effort into your news team and get out on campus the major stories and big front page splashes will soon follow.

Again you say "The only reason a student newspaper still exists in print is because the writers want to see their name in ink: to show to their parents and to add to their portfolios.", then won't you be taking away one of the biggest incentives people have to write for you? If you struggle getting people to write then removing one of the biggest benefits probably isn't the wisest idea.

The first things I would do are change the printer (that turnaround time is seriously awful), ditch any expensive magazine supplements and just make it part of the paper to reduce costs, using any saved money for promotion and further funding the website, and finally look at where your newstands are on campus, there's no way you should have any issues left over when you are at such a large university.

Hey All

While I hope the death of the student newspaper is greatly exaggerated, it does seems inevitable. I want to chime in on a few points that people have made here.

I too have noticed more students "reading" Facebook (or some online distraction or another) and fewer reading ANYTHING in a physical format: newspapers, books, magazines. However, I am not convinced that the gradual move to online content is a good move.

The worst thing any newspaper or journal can do is move from a physical format to a strictly online edition.

Far too many online news sources are sloppily put together. Some are nothing but a glorified blog. Without an established brand name, how can anyone trust that the online source is offering valid, vetted and sourced information? Frankly, if I come across an online newspaper that does not contain a code of ethics, I dismiss it outright as garbage.

There is also the issue of traffic: a physical paper that has reliable distribution is sure to attract more readers than a website. Websites are contending with more competition than any newsstand in the world. So, beyond bombarding twitter feeds and Facebook with pleas to visit the main page, how else is the site going to draw in new viewers?

Or is it readers? That I think is the bigger issue here.

Newspapers attract readers. Websites attract viewers. A newspaper benefits the individual who doesn't scan the news, but who absorbs the information. Studies show that the act of reading a paper or a book is a much different process for the brain than reading a computer screen.
Web content is, by and large, similar to newspapers but often with more "bells and whistles," such as downloads, hotlinks, slideshows etc,. But consider this: how often are these additions truly relevant? Are they nothing more than just distractions?

Students, of course, love a good distraction. Thus, more students read facebook than they do their regular school paper. So, should this trend continue, it would seem that the days of the student newspaper are numbered. Newspapers may become a niche market but that doesn't mean the writers, editors and layout artists who make the papers shouldn't take pride in their work. What we do is still vitally important, even if our readership is shrinking.

Broadly speaking I agree that online is the best way to deliver student journalism, although clearly if you can do both then the benefits of that (in terms of training your writers to set pages etc) are worth having.

Last year I edited The Tab, an online student paper in Cambridge setup by three friends of mine in summer 2009. We have strong reason to believe that a few months ago we ended Varsity's half-century reign (!) as the university's most read news outlet (although obviously it is difficult to verify exactly how many unique readers pick up a printed newspaper so you can't prove it for absolute certain).

I think the things our team and others have achieved bode very well for online student newspapers and show that if you think carefully about your readership and find a group of people who enjoy the online format and work hard for you, this model can deliver excellently for a student market.

www.twitter.com/JoshiEHerrmann

Henry, it's very easy for students to pick up copies of Pluto. We have hundreds left over every fortnight. For one reason or another we're not creating an engaging product. Whether it be the format, the content, or both.

Mikey, as I said, I think our student magazine PR1 should remain in print. But the whole point of news is its newness. In the current structure in which we work we can't produce a newspaper with actual news in it. We also have woeful resources both in terms of facilities and number of students contributing and can't produce a paper product on any greater frequency than 2 weeks. I think a concentrated effort online would create a much better, more relevant student news media.

It really is interesting to see in the comments to this, the different cultures that different campuses and student publications have. I'm jealous of many of you. There's a lot of work to be done here.

I think my point is, what's wrong with trying to do both really well?

Print allows you to offer things (both to the reader and the volunteer) that online just doesn't. When it's done right, it holds the attention of the reader for much longer, simply by virtue of being a physical product, not to mention providing an outlet for talented designers which, sadly, your average CMS based news sight just isn't up to yet.

So sure, break stories online, create dynamic content for the site, make your online offering the best it can be. But if your paper product serves "no practical purpose", I'm not sure you can blame that on the entire concept of paper products. In the nicest possible way, perhaps more attention needs paying to what is being done with it.

Daniel, maybe that's due to the fact that 28,000 can't get hold of a copy, and those that do have to read 5-day old news. If the product isn't good or available enough, nobody will pick it up. I think if UCLAN reassessed its distribution and printing issues, the newspaper would at least have a fighting chance.

Samuel in my experience students pass the time while on campus staring at facebook on their phones not reading the student newspaper. I think for us it'd be easier to build a brand online than on campus. But I realise with all this comments that every campus has a different culture in that respect. It's definitely interesting to hear how others are doing.

Over the next few weeks, Redbrick will be facing the very issue of cuts to printing - in terms of circulation, distribution, frequency, and quantity. Student journalism is very diverse, and it is apparent that other publications across the country are facing different problems at different times, meaning that a one-size-fits-all debate isn't quite conducive to the varying circumstances.

I don't believe that we have reached a stage as a society where online is necessarily the preferred method of reading a particular publication. This is why national papers still distribute widely in print, and why we are seeing the popular emergence of the 'i' newspaper, for example. Granted, people want to read the news quickly, and have it available to them at any one point, but we are seeing a shift towards bite-sized news. Two very traditional newspapers in the Times and the Guardian have seen a radical decrease in page size. The Telegraph, who have remained somewhat consistent over the last couple of decades, only tend to appeal widely to the older generations.

For Redbrick specifically, lots of students like to pick up a newspaper, flick through, and put it down again. It is a great past-time between lectures and seminars. Going online requires an active interest in the paper, and online student communities are difficult to build in a short space of time.

It is clear that online is growing in popularity, and we are receiving more hits on the website as months go by, but there is a great value to a print edition. It allows for a passive interest in the publication and maintains a brand awareness. Twitter is perhaps going to be the greatest tool for sharing articles, but Twitter has not quite reached a wide enough audience, just yet.

For those already with an interest in a publication, or interested in journalism - this article is very correct (although having inDesign/Photoshop/Layout/Design skills should not be underestimated); however, print allows you to build a brand awareness to all - rather to your facebook friends, and their facebook friends. People still aren't in the habit of sharing articles on a consistent enough basis - certainly not to the extent that replaces print readership.

Other newspapers are ahead of us in this area - I think we are a few years away from doing away with print, although we are building towards an online focus.

I was involved in running a student newspaper in Northern Ireland called The Gown. While a couple of years ago I would have thought the death of the traditional print newspaper would be a travesty for the University campus, I am now in total agreement with Daniel here.

We started putting more focus on the website during my final year at the student newspaper, and the results were almost instant. There is so much more satisfaction from a website, from the comments you get to being able to track visitor numbers. And best of all, the pressures of advertising revenue and training people in page design disappear.

Shane to answer your question - "Out of interest, is the only reason Pluto still prints “because the writers want to see their name in ink: to show to their parents and to add to their portfolios”?"

I have no idea why we still print. Probably part of the reason is that for any media officer to make that change it would have to be part of their election manifesto. If you told the current writers of the newspaper in an election campaign that you're scrapping their paper, then they wouldn't vote for that candidate.

Henry, perhaps it is a little too based on the situation at UCLan, but I think many of my arguments are universal. You raise a good point about branding, but I think if done the right way it would be easier to target students on facebook and with some interesting marketing campaigns than have newspapers just sat there in bins around campus. For example if we ran a competition for people who "Liked" our facebook page, then we can pump our stories straight into their news feed. Also importantly, with a website we can easily track the analytics and tell our advertisers exactly how many people are viewing the website.

Mikey, I'd argue there's a case for our student magazine PR1 to still exist in print, if students wanted to learn InDesign they could work on that. For news writers, I'd argue it's much more useful to learn CMS workflows and rudimentary html than newspaper page layout.

Surely the experience the editorial team gets putting the paper together makes it worthwhile.

Anybody can set up a Wordpress site from their bedroom and self publish. Creating a print product is, as you say a much more involved process. It requires some specialist experience, which as we all know is pretty hard to come by in the real world.

Having InDesign on your CV and a bunch of printed pages in your portfolio is never a waste of time...

(Cheers for linking up Flow tho, I've been using something much less elegant and was looking for something better... )

Henry,

"Yes, printing is expensive, but it creates a brand on campus that in turn drives website hits."

I'd take issue with this. There are much, much cheaper, easier and probably more effective ways of getting students familiar with your brand on campus.

Printing posters which maybe highlight some of your biggest scoops. At Lincoln we have some big television screens on campus and The Linc's latest stories are broadcast out on that. Students spend a lot of time on Facebook and Twitter, so using social networking sites effectively will draw readers in through sharing and so on.

These things and more, I'd argue, are a better way of spreading brand awareness among students than putting shit loads of time and money into putting together print issues, sourcing advertising etc.

Daniel,

I was Editor of Nouse, the University of York's student newspaper and website (www.nouse.co.uk) in 2008-09.

I like the piece, and I think you make some good observations, but your argument is a little too based the situation at UCLAN.

Firstly, your newspaper needs to change printer. ASAP. Putting it to bed on a Wednesday and getting it back Monday is ridiculous. You're right - just don't bother. We sent Nouse to the printers Monday lunchtime, and we'd have 4,500 copies back within 24 hours, making sure we hit the busy lunchtime campus traffic.

Also, why only print 2,000 copies for a 30,000 person Uni? York was at around 9,000 students during my year, meaning we could accurately tell advertisers we could hit over 50% of campus.

That in turn meant more money from ads. Our print revenues (advertising minus printing costs) far exceeded our website revenue, for obvious reasons - bars, clubs, grad employers could get a tabloid page advert on a table in every campus bar and cafe, and in every kitchen in on-campus accommodation. Online adverts offer large hit numbers, perhaps, but certainly a smaller target population than the physical product.

Yes, printing is expensive, but it creates a brand on campus that in turn drives website hits. Many York students would visit the Nouse site to comment on a story that they had read over a coffee between lectures.

Investing in the printed product, increasing circulation (maybe by reducing pages if budgetary constraints loom) increases advertising revenue, with a good marketing team. Indeed at Nouse, we used paper ad revenue to scale up online server capabilities to allow our website to grow.

Yes, you make a very good point about the cost-benefits of the website in your current scenario, and online content allows for more writers, more content and greater reader interaction than a bi-weekly newspaper. But with good circulation and distribution models, a physical student newspaper - which provides a service to campus, as well as a medium through which aspiring hacks can learn bits of the trade - pays for itself, and forms a brand on which a successful website can flourish.

Good post. I totally agree.

Out of interest, is the only reason Pluto still prints "because the writers want to see their name in ink: to show to their parents and to add to their portfolios"?

At The Linc we printed much less frequently than Pluto. At one point it was five issues a year, now it's three. The editor before me, and I, both pushed to go online only. It made perfect sense. We updated our website daily with content, it's much cheaper, less hassle, less stress, would mean we could dedicate more time to being creative with our online content, we would be able to generate more content for the website instead of fretting about putting together a 16-page newspaper and 24-page magazine supplement - and so on.

The thing that stood in our way was our journalism school. We're afforded editorial independence, but the journalism school funds us and the one thing they veto us on is print issues. They argue that because print journalism is taught on the course, there should be a print outlet from the journalism school that students can work on. This is very backwards-thinking and frustrated the hell out of me. But we all had to go along with it.

Our writers overwhelmingly would have preferred online only. You still get the bylines and, if anything, putting together an online portfolio is easier than cutting up old news print!

I guess we could have just stuck two fingers up and said "we're going online only regardless of what you say", but we have a good relationship with our journalism school and they help out with legal issues, and some of their cash goes into the website anyway.

Your point about freeing up funding is spot on. Just think of how that money is wasted on dead trees and what it could have been spent on instead!