Meanwhile, the Austin American-Statesman, running second to the Dallas Morning News in digital world idiocy among major Texas papers, has almost totally folded the Advertiser's website into its own.
I don't like it for two reasons.
First, it undercuts what's left of the "community newspaper" idea.
Second, I do NOT like the "Microsoft Surface/Windows 8" type website layout in general.
Now, back to the original post.
Due to some unintentional misassumptions on my part, I've learned that the Statesman has a few IT/web errors that I know of with its community papers. And, due to why these misassumptions came about, it's led me to look at more of the Statesman's other digital problems, and ....
Why this happened, the website errors? I have some reasonable speculation. (I'll then get to my missamptions, etc.)
On the websites of six of its seven community papers — the Bastrop Advertiser, Pflugerville Pflag, Lake Travis View, Round Rock Leader, Westlake Picayune, Smithville Times — their Facebook, Twitter and G+ links are all for the Austin American-Statesman social media sites.
I later was shown that the Bastrop Advertiser has a Twitter feed. And, per a friend on a Facebook conversation, a Twitter feed, too. I'll assume that all the other papers above have their own social media pages. But their websites don't link to them.
These papers all had their own websites until just over a year ago, when they were rolled under the Statesman's umbrella as subsites.
First, if I'm the first person to both notice this and point it out in a full year, how much are people going to the community papers' social media feeds via the community papers' websites? Notta lotta? At least not among people new to Bastrop since the May 8, 2013, switchover.
So, Statesman? If you're going to emphasize social media, perhaps you need to further comb through the community papers and make sure there aren't other bugs. The reason I did what I did, and a rabbit hole of apparently, unintentionally, misguided thinking in doing so, has left me frustrated. And, if you want an ME focused on that, you probably should ask about that more in "conversation."
As to why this happened, beyond the speculation of a copied, and incompletely edited, template?
As part of its money-saving, Cox canned the entire Statesman copy desk late in 2012. All of its sections are paginated at other Cox papers. As far as I know, despite Austin being the Silicon Valley of Texas, they may do some Web and IT stuff for the Statesman elsewhere. I mean, I've been in Texas long enough; I know Cox was trying to unload the Statesman, along with all its other Texas holdings, for a few years. (And, from what I've seen, without eyeballing the Statesman on too regular of a basis, I'm not a total fan of over-consolidation. Besides, if you have to still have a "bridge desk," how much money are you really saving?) That said, with the over-consolidation, Cox will never be able to sell any of its large dailies individually now. Nobody wants to buy one daily paper and start off by hunting up copy desk staff.
And, beyond that, it looks like the Statesman isn't sure what to do with its outlying editions. All of them except Bastrop and Smithville are suburban, not exurban, now, and most of them are suburban. And, because Bastrop and Smithville are exurban, not suburban, their websites, unlike the other four, shouldn't have been rolled up into new Statesman versions, IMO. The other four? Given that they, in print, may be nothing more than zoned-like pages inside the Statesman within a decade, that's different. But, those two should have been kept separate. Again, whether a Statesman decision or a Cox one, not smart.
Who knows? Maybe Cox is doing its own version of what newspaper analysts rumor is Advance's endgame ... spending out to the finish line.
Update, May 18: Jeeesuhus H. Christ on a crutch, it gets worse.
Try to subscribe to one of their suburban papers from that suburban paper's website, and you can't. Even if you enter the zip code appropriate to that suburban or exurban area. It tries to sign you up for the Statesman itself, and it offers the web option first.
What idiocy. Is this related to my first guesstimate of why they have Statesman social media links on suburban pages? I'm not sure. I know the Statesman went to an online paywall shortly after the roll-up. That said, given the "never" quote about paywalls for online versions, that wouldn't matter.
So, the Statesman's web staff could have been dumb enough not to do a switchover here, either, but that seems highly unlikely.
Instead, per the Zip code entry observation, and per my earlier comparing Cox to the Advance group (New Orleans Times-Picayune and all its stupidities being the closest Advance paper, Texas readers), it seems like this is just another "write-off" of the suburban papers.
It's also another write-off of print papers in general, it seems.
Beyond that, selling subscriptions to an e-edition for a Nook/Kindle? Not quite as bad as doing that for an iPhone, but, as I've blogged before, nobody in his or her right mind is going to read newspaper-page PDFs on an e-book reader. They're not even likely to do it on a full-size tablet, but on an e-book reader, forget it?)
As for their level, and particulars, of use of social media, I'm not that impressed at Bastrop. It's nothing really out of my pay grade, and not bad for a paper that size, but nothing to set the world on fire. If I were to be managing editor at a place like that, I might be a bit short on video skills, but that's about it.
The "misassumptions" and ageism? Read below the fold (an increasingly quaint idea).