The most interesting piece, for me, was the 'Societal Influence Model for the Newspaper Industry' shown above. It argues that a newspaper's primary product is influence -- commercial influence is for sale (ads) while societal influence is not.

The Quality Project site says a 1970s-era Knight Ridder executive developed the original model. I've never seen it before but the more I look at it, the more I like it. They are trying to study the validity of the model. I for one hope they can prove its thesis, making that little drawing more than a fleeting oasis in a desert of we-sell-eyeballs-to-advertisers thinking.

Dixie Redfearn got the job. She will spend her days as a central contact point for all readers with story ideas and submissions, while also leading newsroom planning on proven readership-driving topics like health, local news, government, business, health and fitness, public safety, home, food and fashion.

I think this is a great idea and I commend a 17,000-circulation paper for dedicating resources to it. I think bigger papers could take this idea and make two jobs out of it-- a full-time readership-driving story planner and a full-time funnel for community news.

In our case, we've got three community news folks representing different territories -- releases come in from all over and get sent to dozens of people in the newsroom. No one knows who's doing what and readers who submit items can never get a straight answer. That angers readers and, I think, stops them from sending us things in the future.

I was reared at a paper where the publisher's mantra was, "What comes in, gets in." I think we routinely underestimate the importance of submissions -- people love this stuff and buy mulitple copies for friends and family. One of the most valuable lessons I took from my online days was that "reader-generated content" was often more popular than what our team of "professionals" was laboring to create.

Right now, I'm thinking it's hilarious.

This column from the Akron Beacon-Journal's public editor runs down a list of complaints from advertising, circulation and office staff.

Surprising, but good to see. Employees are readers and members of the community. Why not seek their input on how we're doing in the newsroom?

In fact that reminded me of a long conversation I had with a pressman I bumped into and began chatting with at a mall. He seemed sad about his job, suggesting that he planned to just go through the motions the next couple years until he could retire.

His biggest lament was how corporate newspapers had become -- in his case, he meant the growing separation between departments. In the old days, when he was a pressman at the Chicago Sun-Times, guys in the pressroom used to know a lot of people in the newsroom who would sometimes come down to chat. Conversely, pressmen would go upstairs with tips and report things that they heard out in the community. At one point, there was even a program to pay non-editorial employees a cash bonus for good tips.

Now, he works at one of Hollinger's printing facilities which is miles away from any newsroom. The workers print several different newspapers, and feel no particular connection or loyalty to any one of them.

With the readership slide, newspapers spend a lot of time worrying how to bring people back -- pondering how they can cover their community, be an integral part of it and also how they can leaders in it. Ironically, they are doing this all while they're destroying their own internal communities with off-site plants, cutbacks, etc.

Our paper, which has decided to redefine and reinvent this year, has taken the drastic step of reaching for outside help. We hired Lynn Upshaw & Associates and this week its namesake dropped by to meet us and start the process.

I hope this helps. Something like this, done internally, could help us sort out who we are and who we want to be -- not knowing this I think is our most significant problem at the paper. But I don't know that going outside, and having our identity decided in some conference room in California is going to be as effective.

So far, we've been the subject of the consultant's research. He spent all day in different meetings with staff, asking us a series of questions about how we think people perceive us and what we would do as individuals to change the paper if resources weren't an issue. He's supposed to come back in a few weeks.

Only 43 percent of households are paying for newspapers. And those households are only averaging $56.81 a year -- that's significantly less than what the average household spending for online access. Talk about a shift.

Francese said it wasn't hopeless and that there were changes newspapers could make in delivery and in the product that may help. He suggests improving subscriber service, providing more service journalism, interacting more with readers and providing greater context for local news.

Other reports from the conference lauded papers for trying new things right now. They included:

• The Topeka-Capital Journal's monthly magazine for women, HersKansas, inserted into the paper. Interesting, though, it seems a lot like the ol' women's page with features about miniskirts and hosiery. But, they also explore workplace issues and public policy.
• The Asheville Citizen-Times provides game-day coverage of the Asheville Altitude, the area's minor league basketball team.
• New Jersey's Bergen Record has invested in its Herald News acquisition to build readership among recent immigrants and blue-collar workers.

Crain's Chicago Business reported Monday that the Chicago Tribune has decided that it's time to try to get people to actually buy the RedEye.

Free at newsstands, gas stations and special newspaper boxes since launch, the paper will now cost a quarter. Not to be outdone, or accused of having an original idea, the Chicago Sun-Times announced, it too, will start charging.

I thought this statement by Earl J. Wilkinson, executive director of the International Newspaper Marketing Association was particularly insightful:

"Culturally conservative, newspapers have a history of avoiding innovations and new products that don't have a 20 percent profit margin, immediate return on investment, and 99 percent chance of working."