New circulation figures again ugly

It's not just at big papers like the Globe or Herald, either. It happens at small and mid-sized papers that do the same things, allow their in-house marketing people and focus group advisors to wield more influence than they should and spread their overworked write-photo-video-tweet-faceblog staff too thinly after buyouts and layoffs.

When I was in college I would buy and read three or four papers a day, at least, if not more. I read the major papers in our state, two from a neighboring state and Sunday was fantastic. They were hefty, and worth the money and time. They didn't "share" and they competed like sonsabitches to get the story, but first to get the story right.

I used to enjoy reading newspapers when I traveled. Now, I still read them but not as often.

I've been told there is another "reduction in force" of at least 20 at the News & Observer in Carolina. If so, God bless those who will be affected.

 

Outside of my friends who work as journalists, I do not know one person with a newspaper sub. Not one; not even my 82 year old mother, who finally let her Tennessean subscription go last fall "because there was nothing in it I couldn't read online for free!"

 

Making about $0.000001 per web hit.

With the massive decline in print revenues, check ANY newspaper to see what percentage of its revenue comes from online.

Almost across the board, 11-13 percent. And that number is NOT growing.

And that's the amazing paradox at my shop and others.

We really have a lot to offer on out website. And get a lot of traffic. We put a lot of resources into it . . . and get so little money.

I don't doubt it. But I sure see no reason for it personally. I get no enjoyment out of mobile internet. Everything from smaller screen to ineffective keyboard just make the whole experience unsatisfying compared to sitting at a desk with a large monitor.



Meanwhile, we cannibalize the product that gives us 87 percent of our revenue.

 

Mobile not only includes phones, but all tablet technology.

 

Like I said, people do still want information. They don't necessarily want it in the form newspapers deliver it, though.

Sure, maybe they want it bundled. But newspapers currently bundle information based on geographic distinctions largely centered around the transportation infrastructure around it (because they needed to physically deliver it). With the Internet making delivery essentially costless, those types of bundles should change. In fact, the downfall of the largest metro newspapers makes complete sense-they were covering large, diverse areas that didn't really make sense to put together content-wise, but rather made sense delivery-wise. Why would we expect those information bundles to remain static when the economics of the Internet are completely different?

 

yet j-schools are filled to the gills. thank goodness middle son shockey, after falling in love with maryland's beautiful campus and impressive j-school, came to his sense recently and decided he'll be going to cornell instead. whew! he's walking into a world of debt but we feel much better about his opportunities to pay 'em off after earning a degree from cornell as opposed to a journalis, degree from maryland. what do kids do with journalism degrees these days anyway? ???

 

Regarding the top 25 list, the fact that the Chicago Tribune is barely ahead of the Sun-Times just floors me. Not even a decade ago, it wasn't close ... and the Trib had a hell of a lot more than 430,000 in daily circulation.

Still know a few people in Tribune Tower (the empty spaces in that building must be vast by now), and I feel badly for them. They've been sabotaged through no fault of their own by vile, incompetent owners and management.

 

This is (sadly) 100 percent on-the-money, BTE.

Obviously, the Internet works well for what used to be "classified ads" in newspapers.

But I haven't seen any successful Internet version of the good ol' "R.O.P." ads, and until newspaper web sites can figure out how to offer those kind of online options to advertisers, the revenue won't grow much.

 

Again, the Internet changed the model for advertising. You don't need to pay big bucks to get the newspaper to deliver your ads to a bunch of people in the circulation area. You just need a small link to your own website where you can lay out the details of whatever promotion you are running.

Basic supply-and-demand. Newspapers used to have a monopoly. They controlled the amount of advertising they could print, allowing them to attract rents. The same supply constraints don't exist on the Internet.

 

Further, there are successful web-based content providers that produce work equal to if not better than many newspapers. But they are usually (although admittedly, not always) built around a content mix that makes sense to advertisers and readers (subject matter specific) as opposed to a content mix that was optimized for the print-and-deliver era.

 

That pretty much sums it up, which is why I can't understand how people are so surprised by the dropping circ numbers. If McDonalds gave their stuff away in the drive through but charged to go inside the store, what would customers do?

 

Like who?