'What if the newspaper industry made a colossal mistake?'

The article/study raises a very valid point about profit margins.

But digital is absolutely the way to go. Circulation numbers are still dropping nationwide. The vast majority of the public wants news but they want it to be more accessible, something they can pull up quickly.

I actually think all digital is the way to go, just like the Pittsburgh Tribune Review announced. But they forgot one thing: A digital subscription.

No newspaper is large enough to survive on ad revenue alone. People will pay for internet content. Entertainment companies, recruiting sites, even porn have proven that truism multiple times over.

Put everything behind a paywall except for something involving public safety - disaster coverage, active shooters, etc. - and dump the page design staff. Reporters write for the web. A small video staff can supplement quality photography. Instead of page designers, hire a couple graphic designers to come up with shareable graphics that educate readers on a subject and are also aesthetically pleasing. Copy editors become web editors, catching content as it comes in rather than giving it a once over before it goes on a page.

There may be an initial hit, especially in areas where larger companies can throw their weight around. But maybe that will teach newspapers that readers don't need day old NFL game stories. They want something they don't already know, new perspective and analysis. Want a game story? Use the AP wire. That's what it's there for.

It's time to adapt. It should have started two decades ago but we've established that this industry lacked foresight. The news organizations willing to take the plunge and do things right will be the ones to survive.

 

That's the same shit people have been shoveling for 20 years.

And 20 years later, most of what you need to keep the lights on is still coming from the print side (ads + circulation revenue).

I'd rather have an engaged visitor than a bunch of uniques who happen to get steered to a story off Google News or teh twitterz. Those drive-by visitors are worth squat.

 

In an ideal world, there's a lot that makes sense about the article. But, let's go back in time and stop newspapers from going online. What happens? The internet still hurts newspapers by becoming a better place to turn for several things, including classified ads (thanks to Craigslist, Zillow, etc.). Classifieds still get diminished greatly (this is something that gets overlooked, IMO, while people complain that giving news content away for free is the problem). The national car ads, movie theater ads and other big, color ads still go away — because it was the recession that killed those, not just newspaper circulation declines.

Newspaper revenues are still hurting in this parallel universe.

One of the article's theories is that newspapers should just accept 5% profit margins like any S&P, but if you told a publisher or a chain to just accept profits dropping from 30% to 5%, how do you think that would go over? Probably about the same as it has the last 10+ years (layoffs, buyouts, furloughs, etc.).

I also wonder what the online competition would look like if newspapers didn't have digital editions. Would more online news organizations have popped up to fill those voids?

And finally, the article contends that young people are reading paper newspapers despite what we believe. I just don't buy it. I teach an intro to mass media class with 175 students. In a show of hands, not one went up when I asked who reads a print paper. Not one.

 

If digital was going to finance a news organization, you wouldn't have the situation where print is still paying the freight.

 

I very much agree with your premise. More than anything else, Craigslist killed newspapers.

 

There is a lengthy period, probably from the time they finish playing high school sports until they have children in school, that people check out of local news.

 

Except very few places commit to it. Print is still the priority; it shouldn't be. Paywalls are either soft (the Post, NYT) or non-existent; they should be set up like Rivals.com or Netflix.

 

Very few news organizations are doing digital subscriptions properly. Hard pay wall for everything. Local ad buys instead of Google ads. Emphasis on digital rather than prioritizing print. No one is willing to make the commitment because people are too scared.

The way things are continuing to trend, most of us are losing our jobs anyway. Wouldn't it be worth it to commit to a real change in how we do business to see if we can save a few more of those jobs?

 

The entire point of the study and ensuing article was to commit to such a change, the change being print first instead of digital first.

You do sound like a newspaper snake-oil salesman of 2004 who continues to spout about the growth of digital regardless of what the financial figures tell you.

 

That's the debate where I work. A digital editor sends out a daily e-mail with clicks and time spent in each story, and I think it gives more weight to "loyal visitors."

All I take from these e-mails is how utterly pathetic our click counts are.

 

"We should do something. This is something. Therefore we should try it." Always a bad argument.

 

Why shouldn't it be the priority? It's making at most places 65 percent of the ad/circulation revenue, or more.

Why are we wasting time putting together shitty video just to say we're doing video? Seeing someone Facebook Live from a fire or shooting scene on a shaky iPhone adds nothing to the story and, quite frankly, annoys the fuck out of me.

Why do we use social media so hardcore to chase a unique in Pocatello that's never going to return to our website?

Why write a clickbaity head to chase that same unique?

How about we actually listen to people who pay for the product? That means people who pay money for the news in print and online. They usually say they don't like paying more for less.