An Update on the San Francisco Chronicle

A few weeks back, the San Francisco Chronicle Book Review was cut from eight pages down to four: a large cutback for a section that enjoyed readership numbers above 50 percent (which explains why books that get good reviews in the Chronicle go almost immediately to the SF bestseller lists).

The Chronicle Reader Representative Dick Rogers has responded to a query about this change, which the paper explained had to do with "production constraints." Here's what he had to say:

"The production constraints result from the sale of a four-page advertisement and the fact that the paper's presses are extremely old and have limited capacity in terms of maximum pages and color positions.

I don't like to see any lessening of an editorial section, but I can't quarrel with the decision here. I may be speaking out of school, but this paper has endured big financial losses over the last couple of years. That's not a happy situation for anyone who wants the paper to grow and become more ambitious. Or endure.

So I'm glad to see the business side of the paper selling more ads, even if it means short term headaches for the news side. The alternative is bad, and not just for the Book Review.

I'm told that other sections might have been reduced in size, but the consequences would be at least as dire, perhaps more so. In the case of the Book Review, there was the possiblity to soften some of the impact by carrying reviews in the daily Datebook section. In the last month, Datebook has carried 15 reviews in addition to those in the Book Review.

I hope the ad department does a lot more selling. That appears to be the path toward new presses, a robust Book Review and an overall better paper."

**