Advertising As Content: Newspaper Raising Newsstand Prices For Thanksgiving Papers With Black Friday Ads
from the gotta-do-something dept
With newspapers struggling with declining sales and subscriptions, it seems that a few of the major newspaper chains have realized that when they have a newspaper with something of real value to a lot more people than usual, perhaps it makes sense to bump up the prices. Both Tribune Co. and E.W. Scripps are planning to raise the newsstand price of Thursday's paper, treating it like a standard Sunday paper, recognizing that many people want the paper just for the ad circulars that detail "Black Friday" sales. In some ways, it's yet another point of evidence that ads (relevant ones) represent content -- in this case, content that a lot of people are apparently willing to pay for.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, advertising is content, black friday, content is advertising, newspapers, sales
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuclear Scientist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hysterical
The newspapers continue to cut their own throat. I'll be glad when they're gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course ads are content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is this
maybe they have a clue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOLCats to blame?
Fixed.
I request a follow-up. I'd like to know how many more newspapers these companies sold with the "we'll rape your wallet for the paper because _someone else_ paid _us_ to provide you their ads" mentality.
Wouldn't the _correct_ way to be to charge more to the ADVERTISERS?
But wait. I forgot. This is the United States distribution system we're discussing here, where Economics 101 doesn't apply. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not a big newspaper person, but I got in the habit a few years back of grabbing the Sunday paper every weekend - mostly for the ads, comics, and other extra content. I never buy a paper during the week. I was so surprised when I walked in to Quick Chek to get a coffee and something to eat early Thursday and saw that the Star Ledger was the $2 Sunday edition. Yes, I bought it for the ads, and many others were doing the same. I didn't have a chance this year to really check out the sales online and I didn't feel like searching for them when I had to leave for Thanksgiving dinner a few hours later.
Call me crazy, but I'm happy to pay for ads when I know it's content I'm interested in. Mike has pointed this out before and provided excellent examples, so I'm surprised so many here laugh at the concept.
For the record, I ended up getting a microwave for $24 at Target and a couple newer Xbox games for almost half price at a couple different stores. I still haven't seen any of those items posted on my favorite deals site. I'd say the $2 paper was worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd be one of them, actually.
Call me crazy, but I'm happy to pay for ads when I know it's content I'm interested in.
Listen, crazy, you're no different than anyone who wants to find bargains at this time of the year or watch a commercial marathon interrupted by a football game.
While I don't dispute there are some successful ads which people treat as content, the basic economics of funding the real content can't be ignored.
It wasn't right for you to pay the increase for the ads, crazy. You just got suckered into paying more for a newspaper you couldn't care less about.
Makes you wonder why the newspaper company didn't just sell the ads outright, doesn't it?
I'd say the $2 paper was worth it.
I'm glad you found some good deals, crazy. Many people found great deals (some even found some not advertised at all!). I'm glad you felt the $2 was worth it, as that is value after all, but the cost wasn't justified, especially when you could have used the same $2 to buy a movie on DVD.
:P
Okay, it's $2. But what will it be next year? $5? $10? Just how much are you willing to pay for this value?
Because you just opened up a can of worms by giving this newspaper a reason to do it again. P.T. Barnum was completely right. A fool and their money are soon parted.
Oh well. It's the holidays. I guess I should just give up in trying to fight against consumers who just don't care they're paying for the ads used to fund the "content" they want.
Next stop: cable bills inflating to astronomical prices so that you can also pay to watch the Superbowl commercials.
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay extra for newspaper adds..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay extra for newspaper adds..
I contacted them and their comment was if I did not pay I would not get the holiday paper that i was entitled to.
I read the paper and could give a rats *%% about the adds.
they are desperate to keep their customers, but they sure do not show it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teach advertising
In this era of technology is hard for newspapers to survive, but i cannot understand why they have to act in such a way.
Better i advertise online and is cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]