Newspapers are dying: Perception or reality?

[dog428]

Started to post this on the Gannett profits thread below, but figured it would get buried quickly.

Anyway, in light of the profit numbers revealed on that thread and some profit figures from other media companies, can we truly say newspapers are dying? Or have we been fed lines of corporate bull**** about "downturns" and "rough times for the industry" for so long now that we've actually started to believe it?

I mean, let's be honest, you take the cash flow numbers at some of Gannett's worst performers and give them to the average independent businessman and that guy would be ecstatic. Give him some of the top performers and we're finding envelopes of cash in office mailboxes.

I realize that the numbers now likely aren't high as they were a few years ago. And yes, there have been some cuts made to keep the figures where they are. But let's be real, there's a difference between "the industry is dying" and "we've hit a rough patch."

Despite an incredible lack of foresight when it came to the Internet, and despite incredibly inept management, and despite a level of corporate greed and waste that would make the financial industry blush, newspapers are still turning a substantial profit in most markets.

Shouldn't that tell us the exact opposite of what we've been hearing?

 

[Tom Petty]

newspapers have been losing circ. and advertising for years. do you see the trend turning?

 

[DanOregon]

While the margins at papers are impressive, they are also losing about 10 percent a year in revenue. They're dying like everyone is dying, but its more like MS or some other chronic eventually fatal disease.

 

[NoOneYouKnow]

My two cents is that the industry is evolving -- be it very slowly.

With that said, I do believe that in the next two years we'll see a few once highly-regarded papers fold or move completely to the Internet (in hopes of survival).

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it's ever going to get better.

There's a reason why so many have been jumping ship from good jobs to even start websites on their own.

 

[SixToe]

Dying? Not completely.

Evolving? Definitely.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Evolving into oblivion.

 

[forever_town]

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

The question is whether the industry was simply a leading indicator of this economic crash, or the industry has independently gone in the tank.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The question is whether the industry was simply a leading indicator of this economic crash, or the industry has independently gone in the tank.

I don't think the newspaper industry has anyone to blame but itself, which means the idiots that run them.

When the baby boomers are gone, newspapers will be a distant memory. If you're over 60, you might read the paper daily. But the younger generation doesn't get the paper. If you're lucky, they read the local paper online. More realistically, they get the news from the national websites.

 

[Joe Williams]

The question is whether the industry was simply a leading indicator of this economic crash, or the industry has independently gone in the tank.

I don't think the newspaper industry has anyone to blame but itself, which means the idiots that run them.

When the baby boomers are gone, newspapers will be a distant memory. If you're over 60, you might read the paper daily. But the younger generation doesn't get the paper. If you're lucky, they read the local paper online. More realistically, they get the news from the national websites.

Right. Newspapers' problems started long before the economy went into the dumpster. My belief is that the very worst decisions -- non-decisions -- were made when all seemed to be going well, as if the fat profit margins and near-monopolies would continued unabated. That's when they should have been figuring out the Internet challenges, from somehow protecting the value of their well-paid content providers (journalists!) to rectifying the revenue gap between print and Web ads to maybe pre-empting Craigslist with some format of their own. That's when they could have been hiring staffers specifically for their Web sites, or at least distributing existing staff more evenly, instead of now spreading fewer folks over broader tasks.

Now we're in full panic mode, water rushing in the doors and windows and through the foundation while so many of us grab a few valuables and git. People paid for their leadership should have done a better job placing the sandbags years ago. Either those same people still are in charge or they've been replaced by others who are clinging to their jobs or, despite good intentions, mostly are fighting a lost battle.

 

[Tom Petty]

joe - if you have an answer to the internet issue, fill us in.

 

[Joe Williams]

joe - if you have an answer to the internet issue, fill us in.

Tom, at this point it's all riding over the hill after the battle and shooting the wounded.

I'll trust that your request for suggestions isn't an attempt to dash my criticism -- you don't have to be a freakin' chef to know when the meal sucks. I do think some major errors in judgment were made when newspapers put up all of their content -- and often more! -- on the Web site, even though they hadn't figured out how to properly monetize it. Better they should have used the Web as a digest to promote their print product. Stick to story summaries or wire copy, and entice people to learn more in the paper. Obviously, that's been suggested elsewhere, plenty.

Who did it at the time, though?

Even now, allowing unfettered access to the stuff that only the legit news organizations have and pay for -- real journalists, trained and working to professional standards -- seems like a mistake. I've said it before: The numbers on the old McDonald's signs would change rapidly if the place was only counting burgers distributed: 105 Billion Given Away! But if you want to make money, you still have to sell. And hammering on the gulch between all the noise on the Internet and the legitimate news and information seems like the best competitive advantage available anymore.

Dedicating a certain amount of the profits, when there were profits, to R&D might have been a good idea too. Not just pre-Internet but now, pre-Whatever Is Next.

Again, though, there were a lot of stiffs pulling down big, big bucks who presided over this mess as it was happening. Me? I was writing a gamer, sidebar and notes. Sorry I was asleep at the wheel.

 

[Tom Petty]

joe - if you have an answer to the internet issue, fill us in.

Tom, at this point it's all riding over the hill after the battle and shooting the wounded.

I'll trust that your request for suggestions isn't an attempt to dash my criticism -- you don't have to be a freakin' chef to know when the meal sucks. I do think some major errors in judgment were made when newspapers put up all of their content -- and often more! -- on the Web site, even though they hadn't figured out how to properly monetize it. Better they should have used the Web as a digest to promote their print product. Stick to story summaries or wire copy, and entice people to learn more in the paper. Obviously, that's been suggested elsewhere, plenty.

Who did it at the time, though?

Even now, allowing unfettered access to the stuff that only the legit news organizations have and pay for -- real journalists, trained and working to professional standards -- seems like a mistake. I've said it before: The numbers on the old McDonald's signs would change rapidly if the place was only counting burgers distributed: 105 Billion Given Away! But if you want to make money, you still have to sell. And hammering on the gulch between all the noise on the Internet and the legitimate news and information seems like the best competitive advantage available anymore.

Dedicating a certain amount of the profits, when there were profits, to R&D might have been a good idea too. Not just pre-Internet but now, pre-Whatever Is Next.

Again, though, there were a lot of stiffs pulling down big, big bucks who presided over this mess as it was happening. Me? I was writing a gamer, sidebar and notes. Sorry I was asleep at the wheel.

joe - god no, i wasn't kicking you in the nuts. i'm simply not sure there is an answer to the internet issue when you consider the vehicle and the passengers.

 

[Joe Williams]

joe - god no, i wasn't kicking you in the nuts. i'm simply not sure there is an answer to the internet issue when you consider the vehicle and the passengers.

OK. I had a late thought that you were baiting me, gullible and no-longer-gruntled journo that I am. :P

 

[Some Guy]

Newspapers are dying. Slowly, but inevitably. I firmly believe there will come a time in my lifetime when you cannot read the news on a piece of newsprint.

But I refuse to accept the notion that journalism, and particularly sports journalism, has no future, in some form.

You're telling me there will come a day when people won't want to read about their sports teams? That the people of Chicago will have no interest on what's going on with the Cubs? The people in Green BAy won't want to know everything there is to know about the Packers?

There is a demand for sports news, features and analysis, and always will be. As long as there is a demand for something, there has got to be a way to monetize it.

 

[Joe Williams]

Newspapers are dying. Slowly, but inevitably. I firmly believe there will come a time in my lifetime when you cannot read the news on a piece of newsprint.

But I refuse to accept the notion that journalism, and particularly sports journalism, has no future, in some form.

You're telling me there will come a day when people won't want to read about their sports teams? That the people of Chicago will have no interest on what's going on with the Cubs? The people in Green BAy won't want to know everything there is to know about the Packers?

There is a demand for sports news, features and analysis, and always will be. As long as there is a demand for something, there has got to be a way to monetize it.

What I see are the leagues and the teams themselves scratching that itch for people. They'll be the ones with the features and profiles and game accounts, all filtered through implicit league and team approval. That will leave all the rumors and gossip and speculation and criticism to the citizen journalists, people who are so passionate about those teams and leagues that they work for free (or nearly so).

BTW, what the leagues and the teams provide, even with their filters, isn't all bad. They're not going to run a list of likely replacements for the overmatched head coach or carry an opinion piece urging that a pitcher be yanked out of the rotation. But in 70-80 percent of the daily coverage, they won't be appreciably different and they might be able to flex better access. Then there are the few national sites -- ESPN.com, SI.com, FOXSports.com -- that can handle the middle ground.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the void left when real news journalism isn't funded by independent organizations. That's the stuff people need and won't be getting from other places, filtered or unfiltered. Besides, it isn't like the mayor's office is going to make sure that cityhall.com has strong daily coverage.

 

[Jim Jenks]

Very well put, Joe.

There is no doubt in my mind that good journalism will continue. The questions remain of how it will be used to generate revenue and how will it be distributed? We continue to talk about the "newspaper business" like that is journalism. It is not. Newspapers, or more specifically newsprint, is the distribution method. The journalism taking place can be distributed in many different ways as long as the revenue will support those methods. The transition is slowly happening and will continue to evolve.

Part of that evolution is citizen journalism and the roll that the leagues play in satisfying the news hunger out there. While we are not considered "journalists" at the leagues, we do satisfy the consumers' (your) need for everyday news and results as well as the exclusive video content that we can provide.

The short-sighted newspaper executives of the past are gradually disappearing. And that is a good thing. But the new wave needs to figure out what is going to do more than sustain a failing business. And we all need to realize that this is a business first.

 

[kleeda]

Joe, the only part of what you've said I would disagree with is that the web should (or should have in the past) tease to your newspaper.

It's the other way around and it should have been that way about 1996. Unlimited web space, you know.

 

[Joe Williams]

Joe, the only part of what you've said I would disagree with is that the web should (or should have in the past) tease to your newspaper.

It's the other way around and it should have been that way about 1996. Unlimited web space, you know.

kleeda, I know we can do more on the Web and provide richer, deeper coverage. But we can't make more money on the Web. Couldn't back in 1996 and, lookee here, still can't 12 years later.

I'm not saying that's the direction in which things should flow forever. I'm just saying that directing people from the format that doesn't make money to the format that does make money would have been a smarter initial approach. Figure out from there how to deepen their commitment to your "brand", whether it's through Web subscriptions, "extras" for paper subscribers that really are glorified Web subscriptions or something else.

The first thing we began telling our customers was, what we give you over here, you can get the same product for free over there. I've said it before: It's like McDonald's charging when you walk through the front door but giving away burgers in the drive-thru lane. Guess where the lines are going to form.

I also acknowledge the view that what newspapers traditionally sell is their audience, rather than news/information, and that the consumer is the advertiser, rather than the reader. Makes sense to me, but it's pretty much the same issue, once-removed.