10 newspapers that will go on line or close
I found this article from Time on American newspapers that are not expected to survive in the next year (Read the article here.)
You'll notice the page you're sent to is hosted by Yahoo! News. To add insult to irony, I found the story on my FriendFeed account. I didn't pay for the story, nor was I asked to pay for the rights to link out to the story. Why? Because Time recognizes the value of Internet traffic to their articles, and knows that if you aren't going to buy the entire issue, coming to the site is just as good if they can keep you coming back.
It's a new twist on being a subscriber. After all, Time doesn't make its money on a subscription fee - it makes it on the advertising it runs. So if you're going to read the same ads when you read the one article you want to see, it hardly hurts them. Sure they won't get a monthly fee from you, but then they won't have to send you your copy from the printers either.
This is why these papers will either close or go completely on line - a choice between maintaining the centuries old practice of producing a paper on paper, or switching to the medium the rest of us are using anyway. To say these papers will "close" because they're going to publish electronically isn't exactly correct, since they'll still publish, and they'll still make ad revenue.
What will be lost is nostalgic, I admit. And I'm as nostalgic as anyone. But if people have been letting their newspaper subscriptions run out because they don't read them, then they are saying nostalgia isn't worth the savings of just going on line. I really don't want to sound cold, but we shouldn't cry tears for the papers that will no longer be on paper, because none of us saw the utility of the old medium enough to stay with it ourselves.
We also used to travel the United States by train - but planes get you there faster, and you don't have to sleep on them.
When you live in a capitalistic society, this is what you get. The smart news organizations will follow the people's eyes and where they read, the dumb will realize too late that they should have been changing their business model.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with what all those paperboys will do.
About the Author: Eric Reid
View more blog posts from Eric Reid >
Contact Eric
8 comments so far
Sara Wachter-Boettcher says:
The only problem, of course, is that no one's figured out a reliable revenue stream for online news, and the "smart" papers that are doing it well and have a strong online presence are STILL bleeding money left and right and laying off reporting staff like it's going out of style.
What will be left of the news when all our investigative, go-get-'em reporters are out of a job? A bunch of amateur writers providing their commentary on other amateurs' online commentary? Endless top-10 lists passing as news?
Point is, if it were as simple as the smart simply going online, there wouldn't be this much of a mess. I don't believe anyone in the news biz has it really figured out yet. The saddest part isn't really that more reporters will lose their jobs, though. It's that we'll all be even more ill-informed.
Eric says:
True, but some do have a working revenue stream for on line, and those papers I would call, "smart." The ones that are only now realizing they should have got on that train a few stops ago... aren't. For example, Time is smart. They are making money from online. So is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The Philadelphia Daily News has a weak on line presence, and therefore, isn't so smart...
As to the integrity differential between a blogger and a salaried reporter for a printed newspaper, one look at USA Today can make anyone see that just being printed on paper and sold by subscription isn't in and of itself proof of journalistic ability.
You have to ask yourself, though: If we're really uninformed, and we've had these bastions of journalistic integrity surrounding us the whole time, how is their going away really going to make us even less informed? I have a feeling AP and Night Ridder - two sources that author most every "local" newspaper in the country anyway - will still be in business, and probably enjoy greater success with their own on line aspirations.
Point being, if newspapers were really doing their jobs of keeping us better informed, they wouldn't be in the jam they're in now - people would continue to subscribe to them, the last life-line of "newsworthy" news available.
The fact is, though, they no longer are.
Richard Ackermann says:
The papers are forgetting that their model is what is off. All they need to do is allow pay per acquisition selling instead of expecting to be paid for ads that may or may not work. If they become the next eBay or Yahoo! Shopping and charge a fee per sale (easy to monitor via a bridge between the shopper and the advertiser) they could survive!
Marketing Sociologist says:
The morning the Rocky Mountain News closed, 2000 Pulitzer Prize winner Pete Chronis, who served more than 30 years at the Denver Post, waxed, “It’s a death in the family.” Goodbye Rocky Mountain News at
http://marketingsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/02/goodbye-rocky-mountain-news.html
The challenge for marketers, communicators and others who will shortly be calling themselves Marketing Sociologists is explaining to clients – whether that be as employee or agency – is why newspapers are no longer a viable engine for creating image.
Pages are down in every publication and you have more and more agencies jumping down the throats of reporters, building ill-will. I know one agency that has its “interns” (pretty much their entire staff) call reporters ad museum, “did you get the press release I sent. When are you going to run the story?” The agency interns say they are with the client so the agency doesn’t get the bad reputation. Hey, ever hear of caller ID?
The old way of sending out a press release is dead. Thank God Pete Shankman said it or no one may have heard.
In 2006, I lost a ton of business when I started telling prospective clients they needed a MySpace and YouTube presence. Look at what has happened in just two years. Pete Shankman and Seth Godin are gods for suggesting this now. In 2007, the #1 answer I got from clients was, “We’ve got a web site.” (AP style, please). No wonder we’re in a depression (not recession). No vision on the part of business managers or owners.
What if the Rolling Stones or U2 were just starting today? They wouldn’t get exposure on the radio; radio is dead – “Broadcast Radio Dies in 2009” - http://tweenmarketing.blogspot.com/2009/01/broadcast-radio-dies-in-2009.html
The answer is found at “Creating a 21st Century band Brand,” http://tweenmarketing.blogspot.com/2009/02/creating-21st-century-band-brand.html
U2 smartly spent a week on Letterman or Leno (I can’t differentiate the two). Morning news shows seem the only way – outside of social marketing – for creating an image today. Think about tomorrow.
Also, ask yourself – with nearly 10,000 seasoned journalists looking for work, why are companies hiring vice presidents and directors right out of college? Another reason we’re in a depression.
Friendfeed & twitter @phoenixrichard
SST says:
I'm not sure I agree with your last two paragraphs (of your response). Are daily newspapers in their current jam because they are less relevant or because they give away their content at no cost online? If AZCentral.com shut down what would happen the AZ Republic circ.? I'm guessing it would go up. I quit subscribing to the AR years ago for that very reason--not because it wasn't informing me, but because it was now free. The Business Journal is PHX is another example--their daily emails give me all of the biz info I need. I quit subscribing.
And don't forget that little recession/depression we're in. Just about all advertising-based businesses are struggling. Nobody seems to talk about the radio and TV stations that are also struggling to stay afloat. The daily newspaper just seems to be the favorite whipping boy.
Craig says:
Eric: Your comments belie a complete ignorance of the field of journalism.
First, the best newspaper online models are still only producing about 10 percent of their company's revenue. Online ads are too cheap to be a reliable, sole source of income for newspapers.
Many papers are going to free circulation because subscriptions don't create much revenue anyway. If a paper can increase its circulation through free distribution it can charge a higher rate for ads in print, which are still the greatest revenue producer in the business. There are still four days that advertisers really want in print, so Roger's blog is uninformed in this regard. Advertisers do want the print product and so does a large share of the populace, the one over 40 which everyone seems to want to ignore.
As for keeping people informed, who will be the local watchdogs when newspapers are gone? Who will ferret our corruption in city governments, schools, etc? TV? Please, the only investigative journalism they do is for health-code violations at restaurants. Bloggers? No, they are not journalists in any regard. They do not have to hold to the same accountabilities of fact-checking as Roger's blog so clearly illustrates. Bloggers are by and large semi-informed, loud-mouths exercising their freedom of speech rights.
The press plays a vital role in this country, one that our forefathers saw fit to include in the Constitution. The downfall of newspapers isn't because people aren't reading. They are, in greater numbers than ever when you combine online views. The problem is that the revenue model is broken because classified ads (a huge revenue producer) have gone to free online sites and newsprint costs have risen astronomically.
As for the reading habits of Americans, it's now fashionable to read the news that you want rather than fulfilling your civic duty (Thomas Jefferson) by being well-informed. It's no wonder we're slipping against the other countries of the world. We're fat, lazy, self-indulgent and smug about it.
And by the way, Eric, the Seattle PI is in deep financial doo-doo. Check your facts.
Marketing Sociologist says:
SST: Some great points. What station did you listen to this morning? Clear Channel online is out right now, so I'm deprived. For me it was Pandora (oops, AOL). For you, maybe MP3. I really doubt it was Sirius or XM, or KZZP (KISS).
Love Craig's point, "As for keeping people informed, who will be the local watchdogs when newspapers are gone?" Alas, that too is a dead art. Visit EEOCagenda.blogspot.com. I don't see newspapers covering things like this. I don't see them covering the PR field like ValleyPRblog or toughsledding.wordpress.com.
So, SST, I think media killed itself and became irrelevant in 2.0. Why should I sit through 10 minutes of advertising to find out John Travolta's plane is parked at Deer Valley?
I can visit 10 Web sites in that 10 minutes. I don't use RSS feed (I know, we're both on friendfeed), I have a Yahoo page tailored to what I need.
This is a perfect example. I posted something, you commented back. No "morans" here. Loved the camaraderie.
SST says:
MS--If you're saying that the major media runs a lot of boring, irrelevant stories(ie John Travolta), you'll get no argument from me.
But, to answer your question above, the reason you should sit through 10 minutes of advertising in your local media source is that you can't get that information anywhere else. Of course you're not going to do that if you can get all of the info you want somewhere else, not having to sort through advertising. So yes, newspapers are killing themselves by giving away its work(news) at no cost. I'm not sure there's too many business models that work by giving away its work for free.
BTW, your website examples are all fine sites, but I'm guessing none make much $$$.
The key for newspapers to succeed (and I believe good, local papers will) is to generate interesting news that you can't find at 500 other online news sites at the same time and to quit giving it away at no cost.