At some point in the future, newspapers may disappear. But count me in the later rather than sooner camp. And I can't help but think that many newspaper-doomsayers are conflating hope with analysis. According to many of the digerati, newspapers and other printed matter that people pay for through clunky old distribution systems (the mail, kids on bicycles, vans) can never make money and are bound to fail, while publications distributed online for free are destined to rule the world. (Of course, I could be guilty of the same impulse. I have feet in both worlds and could no more choose between print and the Web than I could choose between my two children.) But I also think this might be a case of making too much of a few numbers and ignoring some important ones.
. . .
Many other components of consumer discretionary spending--hotels, restaurants, air travel--have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels? I'm not sure why we would expect consumption of a purely discretionary item that costs a few hundred dollars per year not to fall in the type of macroeconomic climate we've had.Especially when you consider that rather than discounting the product, many newspapers (and magazines) have been jacking up prices aggressively. For the last few years, the most serious problem facing print has been the sharp drop in advertising revenues. (Many chunks of the media world have been initiated into the 40 percent club.) But newspapers aren't continuing to spend money as if it's 2003 and hoping that Craigslist will disappear. No, they're planning for survival by slashing costs sharply, trying to boost online advertising, and, here's the clincher, making people pay more for the product. Print media is now in the process (belated, in my opinion) of finding a second large, potentially more stable, revenue base in addition to ads: subscriptions. The New York Times and many other papers have increased the price of the paper at the newsstand and for home delivery. When you raise the price of a product, you're likely to lose a portion of your customer base. And while no newspaper likes to shed readers, some of the shrinkage in circulation is by design. If raising subscription costs by 11 percent causes 10 percent of customers to flee, a newspaper will find that its circulation revenues are stable while it saves a lot of money by manufacturing a smaller number of newspapers. (The downside: A smaller paper can't charge as much for ads. But in this environment, ads are being heavily discounted anyway.)
Obviously, newspapers losing circulation is not, by itself, cause for panic. Most businesses lose, well, business during recessions. The problem is, newspapers were losing business before the recession. Newspapers have been losing business for decades. And it's not just a matter of circulation. Have you picked up a New York Times lately? It belongs on one of those very special teen drama episodes about anorexia. No one's buying ads.
Some of that will come back, but a lot won't, because people don't rely on the classifieds to find jobs or apartments, and outside of small towns, they don't rely on the other ads to tell them who's having a sale.
It's true that newspapers are jacking up their subscriber fees. Dan Gross sees this as a positive sign--what's known in the business as improving your circulation quality. In the case of USA Today, I grant you it's probably just as well that they're cutting back on their notorious junk circulation, but for the New York Times? Raising their prices is not a sign of strength; it's a sign that they have no other sources of funds. They can't borrow it, and they certainly can't get it from ads. They're doing the only thing they can do, which is sell stuff and charge subscribers more--and cut their newsroom staff, something that the New York Times has tried harder than most to avoid, because staff cuts mean declining quality.
This is not, however, some form of online triumphalism. Maybe five years ago I'd be crowing about new media. But over the last five years, the online news business has conspicuously failed to develop a robust online ad model that will support something as extensive and deep as the New York Times newsroom. I regard the failure of newspapers as something that hurts my future earning potential, not enhances it.
But the universe is not here to please me. And I just don't think that in ten years, the newspaper business model will be able to support very many newsrooms of any size.
Why the heck can't they develop an ad model? I mean, I'm a good Republican, and I defer to nobody in loving to hate The New York Times. But the truth is, I read at least a dozen or their articles a week, far more than I did before the intertubes. Stick some ada in there, for pete's sake. I'll understand. It's not like I'll notice them any more or less than the ads in the paper dailies I used to read.
I think at least half the difference is that now the advertisers can see that nobody cares about what they're selling.
"And I can't help but think that many newspaper-doomsayers are conflating hope with analysis."
Isn't Gross doing precisely what he accuses the supposed newspaper-haters of doing? None of the comparisons he raises apply, and all of the ostensibly positive developments he mentions are actually signs of steep decline. How the hell does jacking up subscription prices increase the number of subscribers, or even stabilize them?
I think that newspapers have a big problem when for many people we would literally not take a newspaper subscription for free. I don't even want the clutter at my house. But the solution is to charge more for that product?
How are magazines being affected? Is there anything wrong with publishing in-depth articles less often than every day? Is it ok to leave the headline news up to the cable news networks?
Recently bought a copy of The Times, didn't realize the cost had risen that much in the last 3 years. Won't do it again.
I just don't think that in ten years, the newspaper business model will be able to support very many newsrooms of any size.
Not many is not none. Someone (Fallowes?) earlier this week said that we were evolving towards a system with several national papers rather than many local ones.
Not many is not none. Someone (Fallowes?) earlier this week said that we were evolving towards a system with several national papers rather than many local ones.
Perhaps you were thinking of this?
Traditional print media used to BE the web; as information aggregators for sports, weather, classifieds, opinion, reviews, and hard news, there's little that hasn't been taken away by other web news aggregators and specialized providers, and with the exclusion of hard news, one wonders why you wouldn't turn to the web for mostly free, constantly updated, instantly available, custom-tailored news sources unless you are completely computer illiterate.
Ads won't work unless the surviving newspapers and magazines lock readers into a proprietary format that forces them to look at the ads (think Apple tablet); the prevalence of ad blocking software, and the lack of follow through, means that most ads are essentially useless anyway, and without some sort of reliable metrics, why continue the charade?
I love print as much as the next person, but this shit is so dead.
the prevalence of ad blocking software, and the lack of follow through, means that most ads are essentially useless anyway,
I just clicked through to a CNN video of someone's SUV getting washed away - before the video started I had to watch a esurance commercial. It was far more impactful as the ad and the content were linked.
I could certainly see vitamin ads before stories about aging, life insurance ads before stories about someone dying in some freak accident. I think they can have very influential ads if they can just get their s*it together.
Funny thing, the ad was probably just a coincidence. But yeah, it'd work way better with better targeting. Why do you think Google has gotten rich? They're the only ones who seem to have a clue when it comes to targeting ads.
something as extensive and deep as the New York Times newsroom.
Well, given that the only thing usually all that deep at the NYT is the fecal matter, I don't see the loss.
Seriously, what's the NYT "news room" good for? They uncovered a bunch of stories to help the terrorists fight the US more effectively. We've got Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, so the NYT is most certainly not going to be reporting on government corruption or failure at the Federal level any time soon.
They aren't a news organization, they are a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. It doesn't matter how "deep" their "news room" is, because it's utterly uninterested in producing news, unless that news happens to serve the political agenda of the Times' management.
Will they be able to find "liberals" eager to be spun a cocoon? For at least a while longer, yes. I'm sure they'll be one of the last to fall.
But their relevance is waning, and they're doing it to themselves.
It's not just the NYT. The LA Times is nothing but pure left wing propaganda.
I don't think that is fair (and I'm a bible-believing conservative, not a libertarian, so I have a stronger reason to disagree with the New York Times). I listen to NPR in my car because they have a lot more general news stories that inform than other outlets. They did a piece on bird songs that male birds use to attract mates on a lek. They did a nice piece on Dubai's economic growth and challenges recently. You don't get that kind of stuff outside of the traditional news.
I would never donate money to NPR because of their progressive propaganda. Same thing goes to subscribing to the New York Times. But I do think it is a loss. I wish there were a truly bipartisan new organization because I would happily support that.
I think one of the key problems with the newspaper business is routinely ignored in analysis of their problems. Look at what makes up the bulk of a newspaper. It's ads. These days, it's a big package of slick ads wrapped in a little news. These ads are usually for local businesses, especiall malls, restaurants, and the like.
Now, where else do you get a fat wad of ads like this? Your mailbox, every day. Thirty years ago, that was not the case. But the post office has gotten more and more aggressive about getting the business of delivering bulk mail for advertisers.
The local newspaper's delivery operation competes with the US postal service's delivery operations, for a big chunk of the newspaper's revenues. If your local newspaper had today the bulk advertising that the USPS delivers in your town, it would probably be healthy.
So, if you really, really want to save your local newspaper, support a law that gets the USPS out of the bulk mail business.
Chris Lemens
Look at what makes up the bulk of a newspaper. It's ads. These days, it's a big package of slick ads wrapped in a little news.
And 100% of the national "news" in the local paper is merely a reprint of an AP story I read on the internet 36 hours ago, while the local reportage seems to be nothing more than reprinting someone's official Press Release.
But, the Dispatch will have $252.18 in coupon savings in the Sunday edition!
Doing that would put the post office out of business.
A serious question, to which I don't know the answer: How many important national stories has the NYT broken over the past year? If its newsroom had vanished a year ago, what would we have missed?
The newspaper business has been evolving ever since the printing press was invented. One niche that local papers will have is, well, local news. Where are you going to read about local politics, sports (here is Texas, that means football!), business, and just plain local events and happenings? Sure as hell not in the NYT. And sure as hell not Craigs list. I suspect they will survive, but it won't look like yesterday's paper.
Besides, I like reading my news on dead trees.
There are still tack shops all over New Jersey, New York State, and Connecticut - but I wouldn't bet on seeing a new high rise stable in the city any time soon.
You can buy kerosene lamps at Spencer Gifts, but I wouldn't cancel my electric service just yet.
Newspapers, like magazines, will be with us for a very long time. They are lighter, cheaper, and easier to read than a Kindle (or whatever), and you have much less fear of someone taking a newspaper from you on the subway. They will ultimately morph into small, weekly local rags.
But come the day that your eyeglasses or contact lenses double as a data monitor, and you can read websites directly from the lenses - and that day *is* coming - newspapers will be cute reminders of the past. Like maple candy.
Since when is maple candy a reminder of the past. They still have quite alot of it as regular items at my (small urban) grocery store. Then again, this is Quebec, land of 75% of the world's maple production.
When I moved to New York in 1995, The Village Voice was available in newsstands Wednesday for $1.50, but if you went to the Voice offices Tuesday night, you could pick one up at 6:00 PM.
At 6:00 PM on Tuesday, there was a line stretching down the street of people waiting to get the new iisue. As soon as they had it, they would sit down on the curb and look through the apartment ads and run to a pay phone as soon as they found one that looked in their range.
Today, the Voice is free and nobody stands in line for the new issue because the apartment ads are on Craigslist. The dating and other connection ads are online as well.
That's a lot of money gone and it's not coming back. They recently canceled some of their best columnists, including Nat Henthoff who, along with Savage Love, was the only reason I ever picked it up. Savage Love is free online.
As you (accurately) point out, the NYTimes is thinner, they've discontinued several sections, and a lot of the writing is second rate. Stories that might have gotten a few paragraphs 10 years ago might now get a full page or more because they aren't generating as much new material. People who are asked to pay more are getting less and enough notice that subscriptions continue to dry up.
It's not just that they are less profitable, they are a money loser and you can only keep that going for just so long.