Is it ironic that a lot of the conversations happening in media is about media? I'm not sure ...
From people stating that blogs are the new newspapers to Democracy dying because of newspapers' demise to people predicting/wishing for all major papers to become online-only to how newspapers need to engage their audience more and on and on and on, the fact is: Newspapers will never die. There will always be a newspaper on paper (until paper is too expensive and/or rare a resource. Then, maybe, back to papyrus?). Though publications continue to file for Chapter 11, cut staff, and even cut days, newspapers will be around for a very, very long time. That said; Newspapers need to change dramatically in order to thrive.
The Press is the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately for the many thousands of journalists and editors who have been victims of gross mismanagement and a complete ignorance to the wave of internet publications and the threat that all websites pose to newspapers, they are still very much one of the most instrumental pieces of our Democratic puzzle. If not for writers, we'd still be living in a pre-RegFD, pre-SarBox, pre-Enron, pre-WorldCom, pre-Walter Reed, pre-Watergate, pre-countless stories.
With the nature of this ubiquitous Web 2.0 world, some forget that mainstream media (TV, Print, Radio) are the main sources for stories on blogs and other social sites. Yes, some bloggers have broken many important stories (iPhone, RatherGate, Tim Russert's death, etc.) but they predominantly get their news the same way their parents did, from newspapers, albeit very often via RSS feeds and Google/Marketwatch Alerts.
I read newspapers but I’m not one of those fanatics that read papers because I love the feel of paper and ink on my fingertips. I read newspapers because that’s where the best and most thorough news is.
I don't often buy newspapers. When I do, I buy newspapers because I’m about to get on a plane or train or I just feel like looking at the Sunday circulars. Are newspaper sales being hurt due to people shopping less and looking at circulars less? Maybe.
More often than not, I just don't buy newspapers because I get them free during the week outside of the subway stops. By the time I get to work, I’m then able to filter through all my RSS feeds and find out what I need to know from those subscriptions, from twitter, or from other sources. For those people lucky enough to have access to Metro International's papers or AMNY, you don't need to buy a daily paper anymore. The best part about these papers is that they cater to the audience better than the New York Times, Daily News, NY Post, Newsday, etc.
These papers are made with commutes in mind. The average New Yorker's commute is 38.4 minutes, according to the U.S. Census (source 2 and 3). This is the longest commute time in the nation. What is worse, New Yorker's probably live closer to their place of employment than almost anyone else.
Despite it being the paper of record, the New York Times cannot be read in 40 minutes (none of the ‘major’ NYC papers can). Yet, this and all the other major dailies are the ones getting the big advertising dollars. I think that the ‘commuter papers’ should be the ones getting bigger ad dollars than many papers. They are being read in full, and for communications purposes, they’re actually being read by several people per paper (I’m not the only one that leaves it on the bus or subway, am I?).
News is now available everywhere… it’s available on your computer, it’s available on your blackberry or iPhone, on your Kindle, iTouch, Palm Pre, etc. However, the most convenient and simplest place to read all your news is in your hands in long form. Nothing beats a newspaper in ease of use, battery life or data plans. Nothing.
So, what is the future of the newspaper? The New York Times has consistently shrunk in size and in bredth over the last few years. Circulation for the NY Times was down nearly 4% last year. Major papers have been seeing enormous declines for a long time. The writing has been on the wall, yet no one has done much about it.
If the NY Times wants to regain the circulation numbers it had it has to do something drastic.
The future of the newspaper is free. While they should and could still charge for Sunday papers, weekday papers should be free and available to as many people as possible. This would increase the circulation numbers and will allow the company to sell ad space for a much higher price. Since the majority of classified ads (for all papers, but especially metropolitan papers) have gone online to Craig’s List and other online sites, the only revenue left to grow is advertising. The NY Times did sign a distribution agreement with Metro International for Classified Advertising distribution (though I haven’t seen the ads as being incredibly valuable).
The NY Times should buy out Metro International (they currently own 49%) completely and run briefs of all of their stories in it. Currently, it appears that Metro employs its own staff and piggybacks on news from the day before. The NYT briefs should all direct people to the website where the NY Times could double their ad dollars by having the eyeballs in both print and online.
The days of multiplying eyeballs by two and one-half are gone. There is no pass-through rate anymore. There’s hardly circulation like we were used to. The future of the paper is smaller and cheaper. Free, cheaper.
This is not a bad thing. The only bad thing is that our kids won’t know what “Above the Fold” means …
.jpg)
2 comments:
I think we've started to reach the point now where print is too expensive.
I was reading somewhere a few months ago, I forget where now, that it would be more affordable for large publications like the WSJ and NYT to offer their subscribers free Kindles and give them digital subscriptions rather than give them a print version of the paper.
I think it's very clear now that the print model itself is dead - and the attachment to paper is what's killing the business (and has been killing the business for almost a decade).
I'm of the opinion that the way the publication is distributed is meaningless. These major newspaper organizations might be able to survive if they give up their attachment to the print and old media models and adapt themselves to what's sustained many successful online-only organizations.
You bring up some valid points. I'd be interested to see those articles. I still, however, don't see print going anywhere anytime soon ...
Post a Comment