Newspaper bankruptcies on horizon

Winner, winner.
Things are changing, but most papers are so diversified, shutting down isn't an issue. My place, so much commercial printing is done that my company is actually thinking about a small daily, just to get the press there and expand the commercial printing operation.
The paper would just be a bonus.
Plus, the newspaper business is TBTF, too big to fail. We only think about newsroom employees, but for every newsroom employee, you have three or four more people in all the other departments. Never mind the vendors, and the contract employees.
A metro of say 300 people in the newsroom, would have a total of 2,000 to 2,500 people getting a check from the paper.

 

I keep seeing this, but I don't believe it. If every newspaper were to have put its content behind a pay wall, readers would just not bother with them, and more sites like Politico or Scout would pop up. The problem with the Internet for newspapers is not that they gave away content, but that the low start-up cost of putting information on the Internet made the effective price of "information" cheaper. It's the content equivalent of flooding the U.S. with cheap Chinese steel. Plus, you can't sell any ads on sites no one ever sees.

 

Newspapers got to the point where they cared more about their non-core businesses more than their core product (news and especially local news). It was great for a long time. They sold classifieds and other advertisement. They found new non-news revenue streams, as the bean counters like to say.

They resisted transitioning to the Web because things were going so well off-line and no one wanted to pay for ads in the early days of the Web. By the time newspapers grudgingly accepted the Web, they also began to realize they couldn't keep their non-core businesses because clients for those businesses had already found new and better vehicles on the Web.

Bottom line, the Web is suited for niche content, and deep local news coverage is the only niche newspapers can fill. They'll miss that opportunity, too, if they don't move quicker and stop trying to save what they can't keep.

 

Good analysis, Cran. As trivial as this sounds, I wouldn't be shocked if the most sellable content online for papers is real-estate transactions and police & fire runs. EVERYBODY always wants to know how much the house next door sold for, and what was up with that siren.

 

Said JayFarrar:

"Winner, winner.
Things are changing, but most papers are so diversified, shutting down isn't an issue. My place, so much commercial printing is done that my company is actually thinking about a small daily, just to get the press there and expand the commercial printing operation.
The paper would just be a bonus.
Plus, the newspaper business is TBTF, too big to fail. We only think about newsroom employees, but for every newsroom employee, you have three or four more people in all the other departments. Never mind the vendors, and the contract employees.
A metro of say 300 people in the newsroom, would have a total of 2,000 to 2,500 people getting a check from the paper."

I hear "Titanic" music

 

I don't know. On the news side, I don't see niche sites popping up to cover the P&Z board, city council news or local education funding. Sure, it's effing boring but when you become a homeowner, with kids going through the local schools, that's the stuff you care about.

 

Well, perhaps, but still: My 401k, for example, you see that money pretty much as soon as it's withheld. And once it's in your personal count, I know of no way it can be touched by anybody but you.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

 

If no one clicks on ads . . . how can these ads be a "new and better business vehicle" for businesses?

I guess I need to learn Web economics 101.

I click on yahoo.com and I see ONE ad of any size and two tiny ones that are nothing more than logos/links.

Where does the money to pay for Yahoo's employees come from?

 

Excellent post Cran. And Bob, I respect yours, too.

In a simple example to defend my "stop giving shit away for free" argument, I offer this:

I cover college football. It's not a national powerhouse by any means. The majority of the interest in the team is local. This is a college town. People can find the results, stats and schedules online, of course. They check the school or conference site for that stuff. But for real reaction, real issues, real analysis (if you can call my weekly column that), quotes, slideshows, etc. they MUST turn to our paper. So why are we — the only paper covering this team — giving all that away for free?

I've asked that question a thousand times and NEVER received a suitable answer.

 

The only monopoly newspapers ever had was to deliver the printed product chock full of ads you can read and study, on a regular basis. On the Internet you're going against local radio and TV, not to mention the mega-sites.