Why Do Newspapers Make It So Difficult To Advertise On Their Websites?

from the not-getting-it dept

By now, most newspapers have recognized that they need an online strategy -- even if many are struggling to realize that this means a lot more than just throwing their news articles online. Case in point: even once they're online, most newspapers still make you go through the process of talking to a human and signing a deal before you can advertise on their website. This, despite the fact that so many other online-only properties now have a nearly totally automated process for advertisers to sign up, upload (or create) creatives, and have the advertisements go live. Newspapers need to realize that going online isn't just about the medium, but taking advantage of what that medium allows.

Filed Under: advertisements, newspapers

Can A Newspaper Survive By Only Printing Twice A Week?

from the what's-the-goal-here? dept

Romenesko points out that the Madison Capital Times, in Wisconsin, is not just putting more emphasis on its internet operations, but it's also cutting back on the print paper to the point of only coming out with a printed paper twice a week. Reader Joel also sent this in, saying: "A newspaper's web site gets its credibility from the daily publication. Without that it's just another news web site, and anyone can put up a web site. I think they need a reputable daily publication, even if it sells poorly and loses a little money, to give the web site legitimacy." I mostly agree, though, if you can successfully do news just online, paper could be a pretty big waste. However, in this case, it's unclear what benefit the "twice-a-week" strategy really provides. It will probably upset those who really liked reading the physical paper each day, and will do little to attract new readership. If they wanted to really bet on the web, why not make the bet complete? Going halfway by making the paper version less valuable doesn't seem all that compelling.

Filed Under: internet, madison, newspapers, print, wisconsin
Companies: madison capital times

A Modest Proposal: ISPs Should Stop Any Activity That Hurts A Business Model

from the it's-their-responsibility-after-all dept

With the entertainment industry's new push to force ISPs to somehow filter or block the transfer of any kind of copyrighted material, Charles Arthur is wondering why other industries facing massive business model challenges can't do the same thing? Newspapers, as has been well documented, are facing challenges from the likes of Craigslist and Google -- so why not have ISPs block those sites? And plenty of people are discussing news articles, even to the point of copying-and-pasting articles. Clearly, ISPs should be protecting the newspaper industry. But that's not all. Arthur points to some other industries that ISPs should help protect, such as auto mechanics and needlepoint pattern makers -- both of whom have faced market changes thanks to the internet. If only ISPs would block the sharing of information on how to fix your own car or how to create needlepoints -- both of those important industries could be protected. Or, as Arthur concludes, perhaps all of these industries could adapt to the changing market. But what are the chances of that happening?

Filed Under: business models, filters, isps, mechanics, needlepoint, newspapers, recording industry

Dow Jones Execs Talk Murdoch Out Of Dropping The Paywall

from the short-term-revenue-vs.-long-term-relevance dept

For months there had been a lot of buzz about how Rupert Murdoch was interested in dropping the WSJ's paywall. However, as we noted, execs at Dow Jones were quick to hit back, and said they would convince Murdoch otherwise after the acquisition was completed. It appears that's exactly what's happened. Murdoch today admitted that he's going to keep the WSJ subscription offering and maybe even increase the price. Amusingly, this news is available for free on the WSJ's site. The truth is, it's still not entirely clear what's going to happen to the Journal's website. While Murdoch said there will always be a subscription offering, he also said that more content will be free. It sounds like he's trying to straddle both solutions here, picking the "most valuable" content to remain locked up. Of course, that was the NY Times' strategy -- which failed.

The simple fact is that news reporting content is incredibly difficult to monetize directly anymore -- due to a variety of factors, mostly having to do with the nature of trying to sell content. There are models (even subscription models) that work, but they will be not for the content directly, but for advanced services, such as personalization or analysis. The risk in locking up your best content is that the WSJ will continue to lose relevance, as the next generation of readers won't even bother to sign up, as they won't be able to understand why it's worth paying for this content, no matter how good WSJ execs claim it is.

The next generation of content users have learned something important: it's no longer reasonable to take it on faith that content they don't have access to is good and worth paying for. They need to have access to the content itself, and will figure out for themselves if it's valuable -- and if it is, they'll want to do more with it than just read it. They want to share it, vote on it, discuss it, analyze it and many other things. Locking up the content makes it a lot more difficult and takes away much of the value. Taking away value from consumers isn't exactly a strategy for success these days.

Filed Under: business models, free, newspapers, rupert murdoch, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones, news corp

Another Attempt To Reinvent What A 'News' Provider Really Should Provide

from the about-time dept

We've been talking quite a bit lately about the news industry, all too often focusing on journalists (or former journalists) whining about the old days or making ridiculous or downright bizarre proposals for how to turn back time. Many of these are based on a faulty understanding of either economics or the very past they long to return to -- which never really existed in the first place.

Rather than pining for a mythical past, however, folks in the newspaper business should be looking at new opportunities and new models that are making themselves available every day. It starts by forgetting that they're "newspapers" and focusing instead on what real business they're in. That also means recognizing that the definition of "news" is different these days than it was in the past. When you had limited sources of information and only a few ways to get news, news was "big" stories that couldn't be covered elsewhere. But those big stories are everywhere these days, and newspapers don't add any additional value to those stories. Instead, "news" is a much more personalized experience, with different people valuing different types of "news" and information in very different ways. This is why teenagers have already shifted to sources that provide news that's actually relevant to them.

Based on all of this, it's good to see new companies springing up that are trying to take on this challenge. The buzz today is about the launch of Everyblock, a new "hyperlocal" news provider that recognizes "news" is different to different people -- and things like what building permits are being requested and what restaurants are being inspected may be news if they're on your block or places you go to regularly. It's no surprise that this company was started by Adrian Holovaty, whose ideas on how to reinvent the news business we discussed a few years ago. For years, he tried to put many of these ideas into practice within the framework of some traditional newspapers, so now it'll be interesting to see how well it goes from the point of view of a brand new startup.

Filed Under: adrian holovaty, data, news, newspapers
Companies: everyblock

News Is Valuable, But Value And Price Are Two Separate Things

from the a-little-economics-lesson dept

This past weekend, David Simon, the executive producer of HBO's The Wire, and a former newspaper reporter, had an opinion piece in the Washington Post decrying the state of the newspaper business, saying:

"Isn't the news itself still valuable to anyone? In any format, through any medium -- isn't an understanding of the events of the day still a salable commodity? Or were we kidding ourselves? Was a newspaper a viable entity only so long as it had classifieds, comics and the latest sports scores? It's hard to say that, even harder to think it. By that premise, what all of us pretended to regard as a viable commodity -- indeed, as the source of all that was purposeful and heroic -- was, in fact, an intellectual vanity."

It's a rather common refrain, but to understand the challenges the newspaper business faces, it's important to dispel some of the myths that are a part of that refrain. The first is a concept that is quite important, but often gets lost: price and value are two separate things. They are not the same. Value drives demand -- but price is set by the intersection of demand and supply. If supply is abundant, it's not going to matter how valuable your product is, price will get pushed towards zero. So, Simon is incorrect in thinking that news isn't valuable or that it was an "intellectual vanity" to think so. News and reporting are valuable. The problem, though, is that it's quite abundant these days, and so the price that people are willing to pay gets pushed towards zero.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. While Simon goes on to complain about the state of news coverage today, the problem isn't that people don't value the news, but that the people who run newspapers haven't figured out how to properly adjust to the marketplace they're facing. We're seeing plenty of evidence that there's lots of money to be made in the news business, for those who understand how the market is changing and how to embrace it. There are plenty of ways to provide news the way people want to consume (and interact with) the news, rather than doing it the same way it was done for decades. It's not that news isn't valuable. It's that newspapers haven't figured out how to adapt to the changing market.

Filed Under: business models, economics, newspapers, value

Why Journalists Demanding Newspapers Charge For News Need To Check Up On Newspaper History

from the confused-about-their-own-industry dept

Last week we wrote about David Lazarus's latest column suggesting that newspapers collude and all agree to stop putting content online. While it showed how little he understands economics, it also apparently showed how little he understands the newspaper industry. Justin Fox, over at Time Magazine, responded to Lazarus, pointing out that news has been free or close to free since well before the internet came along. It is true that most newspapers aren't supported by subscription revenue, but by advertisements already. What little subscription revenue was brought in was often more about covering the costs of printing. On the internet, you remove that cost of printing, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the content itself is basically free. The comments on Fox's post are also interesting, as a couple of journalists come quite close to suggesting (not in these terms exactly) that facts should be covered by copyright. They suggest, alternatively, that Google News shouldn't be able to link to newspapers and that radio announcers shouldn't be able to read the news on the air if they found the story in a newspaper. This shows not only a total cluelessness about the "ownership" of factual information, but also on the value of spreading news in pumping up the value of the original reporters themselves. Perhaps it's not surprising that some reporters don't understand the business forces impacting journalism itself (seeing as they're reporters, rather than business folks), but it's unfortunate that they seem to think that there's some sort of natural right to sustain an obsolete business model long after it's been shown to be unnecessary. There are plenty of business models out there to support journalism. There is tremendous demand for real journalistic activity out there -- and with that demand come business models that make it quite profitable.

Filed Under: david lazarus, newspapers

Journalist Still Thinks Newspapers Should Collude To Stop Giving Away Free Content

from the learn-some-economics dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how San Francisco Chronicle columnist David Lazarus had a ridiculous set of proposals for "saving" the newspaper industry. He wanted all newspapers to collude together and agree to stop putting content online for free and, in addition, to sue anyone who linked to the newspaper sites without paying a licensing fee. To appease him, we refused to even link to his column. Since then, the Chronicle has parted ways with Lazarus, who has made his way south to the LA Times, where he's basically written the same column (yeah, this time we'll link -- let's see if he sues). His argument is basically: "I have no idea what a good business model for the industry is, so why not use my really, really bad one!" He uses some high school students as a device in the column, basically mocking them for not wanting to pay for news online. He goes on to complain that "blogs" will somehow destroy newspapers by publishing so much junk that it "will be too blurry to discern" good journalism from junk. This is a common line from folks who think that if it's in a newspaper, it must be "good journalism" and if it's on a blog, it must be junk. There are so many examples of why that's wrong, it's not even worth pointing out how silly a statement that is (and the fact that it's published in a newspaper pretty much disproves the point anyway). There is plenty of good journalism found in both newspapers and on blogs -- just as there is plenty of junk found on both. And saying that people can't tell the difference is suggesting that your audience is really dumb. Next thing you know, Lazarus will sign up in support of the idea that bloggers should be credentialed.

But the bigger point is that Lazarus insists that since digital advertising revenue remains a small percentage of newspaper revenue, it means that it can't support a newsroom. This is clueless on a number of different points. First, it's using a snapshot view of a very dynamic world. Digital revenues are growing at a rapid clip, as there are both more readers and more advertisers buying online ads. Compare that to the pace (and direction) of growth for traditional newspaper revenue... and suddenly the digital realm doesn't look so bad. Second, it assumes (incorrectly) that online ads are the sole source of revenue. As plenty of other newspapers are discovering, if you stop focusing so much on being "newspapers" and start realizing that what you deliver needs to change as the market has changed, you'll find that there are plenty of ways to afford to pay journalists -- and in some cases, they'll even be able to make significantly more than before. Of course, you'd expect that sort of analysis not to come from some junk blog, but from a "real" journalist. So why is it the other way?

Filed Under: david lazarus, free content, newspapers

Journalism Professor Says Citizen Journalists Should Be Regulated

from the ah,-the-old-elite-standards-again dept

There's just something about the idea a lack of "elite" gatekeepers that upsets some people. It's why you hear complaints about Wikipedia or blogs or home videos on YouTube. For some reason, there are a group of folks (often the former elitist gatekeepers) who feel that since not all of the content is great, useful or interesting, it all is problematic in some way or another. The latest to express this type of viewpoint is David Hazinski, a journalism professor and former NBC correspondent, claiming that "unfettered" citizen journalism is "too risky" and that it needs to be regulated (via Romenesko) by "official" media companies, handing out "certificates" to citizen journalists. Unfortunately, his basic premise seems to be incorrect. He states: "Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide." That's not quite true. While some supporters may claim that, in general the benefits of the idea that anyone can be a reporter isn't necessarily about reliable information, but about providing additional viewpoints and information to try to make sure that more of the story is out there for people to find. It's not necessarily about being better -- but just giving an outlet to people who can add more to the story. He's certainly right that it can be abused, but that's missing the point. Sure it can be abused. But so can the traditional press. What's more important is that such abuses can also be outed and brought to light, just like any other news story. Hazinski is right that professional journalists should be verifying the information provided by "citizen journalists" but that should be true of anyone they accept information from. Almost all of the complaints he lobs at these untrained journalists applies equally to the trained ones -- so it's hard to interpret this piece as anything but complaints from someone who doesn't like the riffraff encroaching on his turf.

Filed Under: citizen journalists, journalists, newspapers, regulations, reporters

Are Newspaper Troubles Just Cyclical Rather Than Fundamental?

from the could-be-wishful-thining dept

While it's been quite natural for many folks to talk about the troubles facing the newspaper industry, it is worth noting that the newspaper business has remained quite profitable over the years. That, combined with a few other factors, has an analyst at Credit Suisse saying that the newspaper business is facing a cyclical slump, rather than as the result of a fundamental problem in the business. Thus, the analyst claims, the business should bounce back, perhaps as soon as towards the end of 2008. One factor in his argument is that troubles in the industry are due to the slump in real estate advertising, and newspaper fortunes should pick up as the real estate market begins to turnaround. While it does seem like pessimism over the newspaper business is overblown, this report is not particularly convincing. First of all, the downturn in newspaper stocks seems to have predated the real estate crisis by quite a large amount -- suggesting that the real estate troubles are only likely to exacerbate other problems. Furthermore, while the report does highlight how newspapers need to become more digitally focused, it's really not as simple as just "going digital." As we've seen time and time again, many newspapers have struggled with the transition, because they still view themselves as newspapers rather than news organizations, and they still seem to take a rather elitist view of themselves as gatekeepers, rather than as facilitators, helping people uncover what's important to them, rather than what the gatekeepers think is newsworthy. So, while we're hopeful that newspapers will figure it out, this particular report doesn't provide much support for the idea that newspapers are managing the shift well.

Filed Under: cyclical, newspapers, real estate, troubles
Companies: credit suisse