Wednesday, July 18, 2007
|
|
The Collapse Of The Papers
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:29 AM
|
|
The sharp drop in advertising revenue at newspapers is the subject of a WSJ.com article this AM. (Subscription required.) Key graphs:
Last fall, newspaper executives and analysts were caught by surprise by the severity of a slump that took hold last summer. Since the beginning of this year, the rate of decline in advertising revenue has accelerated. Total print and online ad revenue was down 4.8% to $10.6 billion in the first quarter from a year earlier, according to the Newspaper Association of America, compared with its full-year decline in 2006 of 0.3%...
In the first quarter, revenue for every major ad category -- classified, national and retail advertising -- was down. The sharpest declines were for classifieds, where spending dropped 13.2% -- not so much a result of competition from the Web as of economic woes affecting certain categories of advertisers. Real-estate classifieds, until recently a bright spot for the industry, have plunged along with the property market. Auto and employment classifieds are also sinking. Financial-news outlets such as the Journal are being hurt by a slump in technology advertising.
"Right now, you've got a perfect storm," says Edward Atorino, an analyst with financial broker Benchmark Co. He predicts total ad revenue will fall 4.3% this year. The decline will be one of the steepest in history....
Publishers are putting initiatives in place to generate a larger portion of ad dollars through the Web. Still, analysts say that growth in Web revenue is beginning to slow and isn't enough to offset the decline in print.
Newspapers' online ad revenue increased 31.5% in 2006 to $2.7 billion. In the first quarter of 2007, online ad revenue increased 22.3% to $750 million. Still, online represented just 5% of the $49.3 billion in total newspaper ad revenue in 2006.
It is hard to imagine online newspaper revenues keeping up with the decline in print advertising revenues simply because advertisers have a world of options online, almost all of them more narrowly targeted and thus more efficient for the purpose of sending a message to the targeted market.
Similarly, marketing campaigns on blunderbuss television networks as opposed to more narrowly targeted cable shows may be easier for ad execs to implement, but can't possibly have the same impact as a carefully constructed and narrowly targeted campaign that assures the available ad dollars are all going to hit the intended demographics. Radio advertising also refines the audience for the advertiser. Blogs and web sites that can prove up the background of their readers cost a lot less than the online papers and provide a much more reliable demographic.
|
|
The analysis above is not speaking to airline advertising or demise, but to the decline in sales of newspapers. The scope of the analysis is Newspapers, their ad campaigns and their lack in revenue. The analysis mentions the move to web news. No where does the analysis above mention airlines.
Once again, a liberal lack of reading comprehension, I suppose.
And, to remind you the condemantion of JetBlue was for their involvement with the DailyKos convention. Their financial support of the convention.
|
|
|
The news consumer skews old. Advertisers are looking for young audiences. I heard on KABC yesterday during the Doug McEntyre show that once you get below the 30 year old line, fewer than 20% follow any news AT ALL. That is astounding. |
|
The decline in ad revenue has a direct linear correlation to the decline in circulation. That's a function of decade’s long practice of reporting "spin" instead of facts...and now people have the technical means to verify the information.
Why pay the freight for something that leaves important information out of the discussion or reports information in a slanted manner.
People put on their rolling stones and walked elsewhere. The advertisers only give a bleep about where those people are going...because those are their customers...and if you can't reach their customers they are going to give their advertising dollars to someone who can.
|
|
will figure out that (a) no one wants to buy a Sunday Dallas Morning News even for the coupons if they continue to tell us how tough it is to be gay and in high school, the military, the ministry, the workplace, the dating scene, et cetera ad nauseum...
Maybe they'll figure out that we can get more national and world news and information faster and more accurately and switch to local coverage?
Maybe; but I doubt it. Their liberal attitudes won't let them face the message that we don't like their unAmerican tones, their immoral attitudes, and their attempts to break down everything good and decent in this country.
Sic Semper Tyrannis... |
|
The danger for Jet Blue is the same danger facing Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn and the Ditzie Chix, among others: too close an identification with an extreme political POV. While it might get them more exclusive dinner party invitations it will also alienate a large segment of potential customers and fans.
Newspapers (and the major network TV news orgs) have yet to understand the game has changed permanently and how to adjust their cost structures appropriately for the new competitive paradigm. The fact that so many are clearly and energetically biased just drive their former consumers away that much faster.
The Internet: cheaper, better, faster. And no stacks of moldering newsprint to save for recycling. |
|
"It is hard to imagine online newspaper revenues keeping up with the decline in print advertising revenues"
It is equally hard to imagine online newspaper *costs* in line with those of print. The future is clear: online, lower-cost and lower-revenue "papers," with far less middleman activity.
|
|
There are conservative newspapers? Where can I find one? I would like to know, cause I have been looking for over 30 years now.
I would gladly buy a conservative newspaper. Just have never seen one. So, reality is there does not exist conservative newspapers. Not in my reality.
But, if i were a nutroot, from that perspective it would seem that conservative papers do exist. |
|
"If the decline in circulation was due to "liberal attitudes" then conservative newspapers would be maintaining, if not growing, market share, wouldn't they?"
The NY Post is maintaining circulation while the NY Times and other NYC are papers are dropping in free-fall. |
|
If it is true that less than 1 out of 5 people 30 and under bother to read the news, what does that bode for our Republic?
The time has long passed for us to institute a Poll test. Someone should demonstrate some knowledge of issues and the constitution prior to voting.
The foundation of our Republic is predicated upon an informed electorate, something that is dying out. |
|
Newspapers are in the information industry. Their circulation numbers are decreasing because they're too slow, too shallow, inaccurate, and offering views from the wrong era...
His ad hominem attack just echoes the shrillnes of those still mourning for the USSR...
|
|
|
there needs to be a law that mandates a sharp smack in the back of the head to anyone who says, "perfect storm" until we stamp that out of common blurbage. |
|
|
do we? once again, off the mark. |
|
I have read the NY Times for over 50 years. During that period I both agreed and disagreed with the editorial and Op-Ed page. But I always accepted the role of those pages. However, over the last 5 years in particular 2 things have changed. The supposedly tolerant left has become totally intolerant and vicious. Most notable in this regard, has been the so called economist, Paul Krugman and the so called movie reviewer, Frank Rich. However, as distasteful and disgusting as they and their peers on the editorial page may be, I could live with them if I trusted the news content of the paper. What made the final decision for me is that the paper is neither honest nor relevant in its news reporting. Until 5 years ago, I believed that however slanted the headline might be and however slanted the report itself might be, that when I arrived at the end of the article I would have at least seen all the facts. I no longer find this to be true and therefore no longer have a reason to pay for this trash.
I have come to realize as other news sources have grown how one sided the Times has become, both through what it writes and perhaps more importantly through what it doesn't find fit to print.
I'll miss it, but I will not miss the bile. |
|
|
"know" as well. Keep going. Oh, has anyone told the stockholders this valuable "knowledge"? |
|
What is your major malfunction?
I am a print publisher, and my product has always made a profit. It's about being relevant to your audience as well as having a clue about business and managing your costs appropriately.
None of the above for the NY Times and its progeny.
There is a role still for print media, but with the advent of technology in the industry it is no longer a monopoly. The print media that owns the majority of their market share must be relevant to their customer.
It is not a black and white issue, pardon the pun. There are two aspects of it...the change in the nature of the competitive environment, and the demand for relevance.
Hugh gets it...and he's a CLEVELAND fan!! If he gets it, I don't understand why Pinchy can't. (J.K., Hugh -- you know I think you're awesome)
|
|
If the impending demise of the print world is solely due to a paradigm shift based on the emergence of low-cost digital and electronic alternatives, then why have the Major TV networks seen such a decline in their news viewship and resulting loss of ad revenues, a decline that began long before the proliferation of PDAs and cheap laptops? Wanna 'splain that???
Sorry, chief, but there are numerous reasons for the shift, and significant among them is that millions are tired of the same old liberal bias.
For over twenty years, I read the NY Times every morning. It was a cherished routine. But finally I got tired of the predictably leftist book reviews, the dumbed-down crosswords, the incessant Bush-bashing, the intrusion of opinion into purported "news" pieces, the hypocritical editorials (one op-ed piece condemned GOP-driven "corporate welfare", while the business page IN THE SAME ISSUE bragged that the Times Co. wangled a $29 million tax break from NYC to help fund the new Times HQ), and ---for me this was the clincher---the revelation that many major news topics covered all over the Internet were being assiduously ignored by the Times (in both its print and digital editions) if they didn't fit the liberal template. A whole lot of other people have come to the same conclusion, namely that they don't need to pay to read this nonsense any more.
Rassmussen and other pollsters have noted that voters tend to choose news sources based on their politial preferences. The rise of the Iternet and Fox News have finally given conservatives someplace else to go --- and go they have. Not only that, the Web gives each of us the opportunity to read many points of view, simply by bookmarking and re-visiting interesting sites: That's my new routine. So the "marketplace of ideas" used to be an oligopoly is now more like the floor of the NYSE. Now THAT's what I call "progressive"!
As for your vaunted reasoning power --- you speak very well of yourself, sir! Many of your self-congratulatory postings remind me of a cartoon that ran back in the 50's and 60's, featuring a good-natured oaf named "L'il Abner", who often began arguing a case by declaiming "As any FOOL can plainly see...." |
|
|
trying to come to a reasonable conclusion with Manfred or Brob is like wrangling cats. Manfred is out there and Brob only has one good point and will never stop switching ground as he loses. God love 'em. Good luck. |
|
As ever, the terminally obtuse B-Rod does not understand the argument. I said that the Majors NEWS TV programs had lost viewership. The numbers they have lost dwarf the total viewership of all the cable NEWS programs.
Free clue, B-Rod: the Sopranos is a DRAMA. The Food network is about FOOD. ESPN is about SPORTS. Get it? GET IT?
If B-rod wants to argue that millions of viewers who watch cable programs about sports, food and Mafia families are inexorably driven NOT to watch the news on CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS, let him make it. Last time I checked all cable services offer "the Majors" as part of their Basic packages. And last time I checked the Majors had a boatload of very popular non-new programs. In fact, I watch thm, as to millions of others. IF PEOPLE ARE DRAWN TO THE MAJORS TO WATCH CERTAIN PROGRAMS, WHY ARE THEY SHUNNING THEIR NEWS PROGRAMS?? Certainly not because it's more expensive to watch TV than to watch/read on the Internet.
Having misconstrued the issue, B-Rod then wanders off into tangential (and tendentious) comments to the effect that all conservatives are stupid, ignorant, benighted, all the time. Now THAT's a POV that will get you kicked off a high school debating team, it's so inane.
B-Rod: "I never said I was so smart. i just said you cons are so farucking stupid. There is a difference, you know . . . ."
No sir, there's no difference.
Anyone who thinks half of America is dumber than he because of their political persuasion is also saying he is smarter than that same half of America.
As Kahn would say over at "King of the Hill", you obvioulsy think that YOUR A*S IS GENIUS!!!
As for "where you gonna go" if I don't read the NY Times? You've answered the question yourself --- I've gone to the Web. As have millions. That's the reason YOU gave for the decline in paid circulation! I didn't leave because the dead-tree Times was more expensive, I simply left the Times because they began to SUCK.
Their on-line operation is still an insignificant revenue source, so.....liberal readers haven't simply migrated to the Times On-Line. WHERE DID THEY GO? AnSWER the EFFING QUESTION, B-Rod!!!
B-Rod: "Bill Scheifer on Sunday said something to the effect that the US should be looking out for its own interests and not trying to save the world."
LOL! Please pay attention, B-Rod. It is YOU GUYS who are trying to lure the U.S. into Darfur, where we have no significant interests--- just as we had no interests in Kosovo or Bosnia. BUT nonetheless the libs want us to invade Darfur to "save the world",
The reason Schiefer is wrong is that he assumes we have no interests in Iraq, which we did when we went in, to overthrow a murderous dictator who was shooting at our planes, violating his surrender agreement, and refusing to comply with UN deamnds,for years and every day, and most certainly do now that we have deposed him.
As for "no plan to get out", did we have a plan to get out of WWI? WWII? Korea? Did we have a plan to get out of Bosnia, where we still have forces? Who was it who sent us there, but a democrat/liberal?
Let's face it B-Rod: deep down, you're shallow. Not only do you lack a command of the facts and history, you have the reasoning power of a cherrystone clam.
A severely retarded cherrystone clam... |
|
|
Some folks are highly educated and nuanced. That means they know little about humans or history; have shifting moral grounds; and have a severely skewed perspective that is out of sync with reality. These types take the football and run with it 70 yds for a TD - in the wrong direction. |
|
|
|