1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

And in Montana ...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SportsGuyBCK, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. SportsGuyBCK

    SportsGuyBCK Member

    Missoulian cuts seven positions ... doesn't say how many cuts came from editorial ...

    http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/27/bnews/br75.txt
     
  2. luckyducky

    luckyducky Guest

    Third graf:

     
  3. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I guess it did. ;)
     
  4. SportsGuyBCK

    SportsGuyBCK Member

    DOH ... that's what I get for trying to do three things at once :)
     
  5. KVV

    KVV Member

    I'm told the two people cut were married. They moved from Roanoke a year ago. After settling in, they adopted two kids, with plans to raise them in Missoula.

    Lee Enterprises axed them both.
     
  6. mike311gd

    mike311gd Active Member

    You're on fired today. I love it.
     
  7. luckyducky

    luckyducky Guest

    I'm not quite sure, but thanks. ;)
     
  8. ColbertNation

    ColbertNation Member

    Not gonna ask what the other two things were ...
     
  9. SportsGuyBCK

    SportsGuyBCK Member

    Talking on the phone with one of my reporters while a couple of my dogs were trying to jump in my lap ...
     
  10. I might be movin' to Montana soon
    Just to raise me up a crop of
    Dental Floss

    Raisin' it up
    Waxen it down
    In a little white box
    That I can sell uptown
     
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I admire papers that are up front with their readers in announcing the cuts, but I really wonder what it says when the Missoulan, like the KC Star, say their audiences in print and on-line are expanding, yet they're still cutting staff. If so, why hasn't the advertising followed if it was there when the audience was smaller?
     
  12. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    One man's (cynical conspiracy) theory:

    Because the premise was flawed to begin with. Newspapers -- and anyone else who takes advertising -- could command such a high price for it in print because nobody really knew who was paying attention to the ads. It was all assumed. Regardless of market surveys, you can't track those numbers. All you can do is track the overall audience, track your sales, and go from there.

    Online, it's a different ballgame ... and the scam is up. You can track exactly how many eyeballs you're getting, exactly who's clicking on ads, exactly what an advertiser is getting for its money. And the truth is: not very much. People ignore ads as much now as they ever did, only now ... it's out in the open.

    That's not just newspapers. That's print advertising in general -- it's all a scam, and it was based on a false premise: that the overall audience was actually paying attention to your ads in the first place. It ignored the fact that half the country turns the channel during TV commercials, and millions of us have ad-blockers on our Internet browsers. We can still be swayed, sure, but advertising has never had the effect that these companies would like to believe.

    So, advertisers are scrambling to "regain" an audience they never had and, well, there's simply no need for the middleman. Not with targeted advertising online. The game has changed -- it'll never come back, at least not that way.

    There will be a way to make money off online advertising someday. Hopefully, someday soon. But newspapers and those who rely on advertising won't be able to rely on the same way as they have for the last 80 years. I think that's been proven out in the last decade.

    That's why the advertisers aren't "following" us online. There's simply no need to pay what they pay at print rates, because they shouldn't have been paying that much in the first place. They know it, we know it. It's gotta change.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page