The state of newspapers today

But with the cuts at a lot of newspapers, maybe they aren't covering local news in any depth.

People won't pay for a weak newspaper, so they probably won't pay for a weak newspaper's on-line product.

My guess is the New York Times probably figured people would pay to read Maureen Dowd, Krugman, David Brooks and company on line because people needed to know what they were saying and it was a special part of the paper. It didn't work. One reason is because, in my local paper, a couple of those people would have their column there the next day. All I had to do was wait a day.

 

Phew, I was beginning to worry that we weren't going to get a "State of the Newspapers Today" thread today.

 

why do you hate america, WB?

 

I. don't. have. the. energy.

 

It doesn't matter if we are giving away the paper "for free" on the Internet. We're practically giving it away for free in print already. How much profit do you think we make off the 50 cents Joe Blow pays for the paper? After the cost of newsprint and delivery costs, I'd say it's zilch. We make money off advertising. The same model should exist online, where we don't have to pay newsprint and delivery costs.

 

Some papers lose money on the cover price. That's not the point. Until online advertising rates catch up to newspaper rates, it's ridiculous to give people one more reason to not buy the paper. It's easy to read that online advertising is growing while newspaper advertising is shrinking, but the revenue is still very small online -- not anywhere large enough to sustain more than a bare-bones news team. It costs very little to advertise online. If that weren't true, companies would gladly kill the newsprint product because newsprint is a paper's No. 2 cost after labor.

 

How did you know?

All this time, I thought I've done a pretty good job of hiding my plan to destroy all of you disbelieving American infidels - one thread at a time.

Fight until there is no more Fitnah! is what my new buddy Mohamed always says.

 

If you DON'T make the paper available for free online, you will kill the one thing newspapers still have over just about any Internet site -- an identifiable brand name and identity. Also, if you go behind a pay wall, nobody is going to buy Internet advertising, or if they do, they'll pay next to nothing for it.

And whomever said earlier that people who aren't paying for weaker newspapers in print sure as hell aren't going to pay for them online, either. With so much information -- for free -- at people's fingerprints, it's the height of arrogance and short-sightedness to think someone will pay for yours.

 

You're correct Frank.
The main revenue stream of a newspaper is the advertising dollars produced by the print product. Those rates are determined by paid circulation of the newsprint product. Putting the entire product up for free online makes people who own a computer and yet pay for the newsprint product idiots.

Any business whose model makes its customers idiots for paying for the product is itself idiotic. That's all I'm saying. Yes, we have to adjust to the internet world. But we're folding our tent and killing ourselves the way we're doing it now.

Again, I'm not saying I know what the answer is. I am saying we know what it is not. And we'll die if we don't stop doing it.

 

Sincerely,

Radio

 

What good does it do to create brand and identity if the act of doing so kills your business? And that's exactly what we are doing on the current course.

As things stand now, the cost is outweighing the benefit by miles and miles. We've given people reasons to read us but no reason to buy us. The reasons to read us will always be there.

 

Apples and mangos.

Radio revenue comes in from advertising. And, again, advertising rates are set by listeners.

While it's not exactly the same, what we are doing right now is somewhat the equivalent of radio stations giving their listeners reason another outlet on which to listen that drives down their ad rates.