"Print's dead -- but so is digital"

Michael Wolff, writing in USA Today, notes that there is nothing at the end of the rainbow. (Wolff wrote the Murdoch biography and also covers media for GQ and Vanity Fair.)

Wolff: Print’s dead — but so is digital

Despite the online world’s crowing about advertising growth, and the belief of many publishers that online ad revenue would surely replace offline, the per-view price of a digital ad continues to drop, and ever-more ad dollars are concentrated with Google and Facebook. Now, to boot, there are ad blockers: nobody ever has to see a digital ad.

The passing enthusiasm for paywalls as an alternative revenue stream has, other than for a few must-have titles, produced scant revenue as well as falling readership and a collapsing brand awareness for many newspapers.

 

He's right, of course.
The pleas from online businesses for consumers to disable ad-blockers are piteous.
I use Duck Duck to get to my mail without having to see Kardashian garbage, but a lot of web users aren't.
From a 2013 Forbes article: "In a report released this week based on data collection from 220 websites using the company’s services, PageFair says that 22.7% of web surfers are blocking ads."

 

Well that was depressing.

Print is dead, for sure.

Digital isn't dead-- last I checked people still go online--

Digital advertising isn't producing revenue.

In the mid- term, I think the money's gonna be in the targeted shit.

Knowing who clicked your story, how long they lingered, why they clicked it, where they live, how much money they make, email address, recent Google searches, pets.

That information is worth something to advertisers.

 

I've never understood the idea behind pay-per-click with online advertising. In other mediums, it's all about the impressions those ads leave on a potential consumer. But when it comes to online, you're paid when people physically interact with those ads.

I feel news outlets could compete directly with local radio and TV by tapping into podcasting and video mediums for a big fraction of the cost (at least in terms of equipment; man hours is another thing). That article mentions newspapers sitting on tons of unwatched videos, and it's easy to know why: they suck. I've seen plenty where the sound quality is terrible because they use the camera's built in mic, the reporter usually lacks experience with on-camera reporting and, usually, personality too.

Point is, there's still a lot of potential in this field.

 

Honest to God, what the hell do people pay for any more? They don't pay for journalism. They don't pay for music. They barely pay for movies. They don't subscribe to cable. They don't buy cars. They all know how to game the system to visit five European countries for like $300. Food, I guess. Restaurants. The consumer economy, swear to God, is in steady collapse. It's unbelievable. But then I read they no one saves. I can't make heads or tails of any of it. I can't.

 

Dick, automobile sales have been setting records for over a year. Last time I went to a movie, three weeks ago, ticket was $12.50. Hardly nothing. And of course, people pay through the nose for the gadgets that let them access the Internet to get other stuff for less.

 

I stand corrected on the cars. I know a lot of ink has been spilled about the difficulty getting young people to buy cars, mostly because they live in big cities. (Where the jobs are.)

I guess I'm saying that people don't spend on media. They don't buy music any more. They don't buy DVDs. They don't buy newspapers and magazines - or shell out for paywalls. I have read that books are making a comeback.

 

Yeah but Uber's all the rage, and driverless cars are coming.

I think the love affair with driving is taking one last gasp.

 

Can't prove that by Yoenis Cespedes.

 

Just wait until you can be an Uber contractor with a driverless car. Easy money.

 

Sounds like a great business idea, Baron !