I AM always deeply humbled when I meet people who have been subscribers to the Times-Age for decades. Over the weekend I met someone who had subscribed since the mid-seventies.
That's a little scary for me, because in comparison it can feel like I've been five minutes in Wairarapa and about 15 minutes in journalism. There's no way I can be blind to the fact that these loyal subscribers have seen enormous change in media practice and design, and will inevitably make comparisons on what papers were like in broadsheet, pre-internet times, and what they are like today.
These people aren't "haters", to use the modern word. Loyal readers will not necessarily like everything that appears in the paper, but if it bothers them enough, they will let me know - usually a phone call, but sometimes it's a request for a meeting, a moment of the editor's time. Since it is always a delight, even in negative circumstances, to meet a long-time subscriber, I enjoy the exchange of views. The theory is that I'm paid to know what the readers want, but that skill is part media training with a hefty dollop of guidance from reporters and readers who have been here longer than I have.
In fact, it is fair to say I am guided more by newspaper readers than by social media. Facebook is a different culture, where postings and comments are a snap moment, a brief emotion (frequently of anger), rather than the consideration that comes with a phone call that starts with: "I've been debating over this, and I've finally decided to call and say ... ".
Overwhelmingly, when I talk to the loyal newspaper readers, the main reason they continue to subscribe is because local means local. Older readers want the news from their towns, and they rely on the weekly communities and their daily to provide it. As one subscriber pointed out this weekend, I had photographed a friend of hers during the Tauherenikau races. Again, that's another incentive: older readers know more names and faces, and enjoy spotting them.
