| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
1981 forecast for Newspapers
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
Steven Bisig, Photographer
 |
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 7:34 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> 2 hours to download the entire text!
thanks for sharing that find.
steven b~ |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 7:39 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> wow that is cool.
I know this maybe a stupid question but did the internet kill the newspapers or did the newspapers kill themselves? |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 8:09 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> It seems to be a bit of both. I think the papers ignored the writing on the wall and just didn't think it'd ever get to the point we're at now. I also seriously doubt anyone in the industry could have imagined the speed and growth the internet has achieved since Al Gore invented it. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 8:25 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> lol Nice Al Gore reference :)
It would seem that in 1981 they had an idea of the future, but for whatever reason in the 20 odd years they refused to adapt to it. |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 10:23 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> That was the most insightful thing I've seen on TV in a long time... |
|
Peter Wine, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Dayton | OH | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Lots of people think that it was newspapers putting their content online for free that is doing them the most harm, since why pay when you can get it for free.
That is in part true, of course. That did reduce some of the demand for content.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Craigslist and the 'instant classified' did more financial harm to newspapers over time.
While ad revenue in the rest of the paper did decline, and that hurt; I suspect the lost of an entire section of advertising hurt more.
Our local paper went from what I'd estimate to be 10-20 pages of classifieds on a given day, to now where today's classified section is four (yes, 4) pages.
My neighbor said he may be dropping his subscription because the paper stopped covering the sporting information that was his main purpose for getting a daily paper.
He's told me that for most things he wants information on, it says, 'see our web site.' So for him, it's why pay when the information I REALLY WANT is online for free.
So the newspaper is doing two things to cut their own throat. 1) put info that a customer wants online for free and 2) take the info that a customer wants out of the printed edition.
One good thing that's happened is that the newspaper's printed edition has the local stories in the first section, and a small second section with national news.
So there is hope. |
|
Peter Wine, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Dayton | OH | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> As an afterthought...
Long ago, when Napster was being sued by the record labels for 'sharing' music, I was surprised that there was no response by the record labels offering tunes for purchase.
They held fast to the idea of, 'if you want our music, buy the tape, buy the CD or buy the LP,' until the 'sharing' phenomenon was entrenched.
It took a lot of work to overcome the idea of 'free' music, and get people to start buying music online.
But they did start buying music online.
Imagine what things might look like for newspapers (or news publishing companies, since that what they really are) if they had begun selling their content when they first went online, instead of giving it away.
Not selling an article for dollars, but rather pay for today, weekly or monthy access to all content.
Even today, I wonder if a newspaper's web site were to offer the entire newspaper, in PDF format, if that would make a difference.
It would be free to print subscribers, or a reduced fee to online only subscribers. (Which is completely fair, because the delivery cost is almost nil compared to the print edition.)
In the next few years, I suspect something like the Kindle(r) will be available at cost that most consumers can afford (in the same way that the cost of satellite TV service equipment has dropped, or been absorbed) and this business model will be standard.
How many newspapers will be left when that happens?
Harder to tell. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 3:12 PM on 03.31.09 |
->> Peter - I don't think the music concept will work for news. When people buy music they want those specific songs. If a viewer doesn't know what "news" is there they're unlikely to pay for a daily subscription. If you give them headlines and one peaks their interest they're very much likely to just search other newspapers or TV websites for the same story.
The truth of the matter is I used to read the paper daily because I enjoyed the stories. About 3 years ago I went to weekend only and 8 months ago I cancelled my subscription entirely. At that point I was litterally skimming headlines and looking at the photos. The only content that held any value to me was sports - particularly local sports. Any national story can be found in way too many places on the web for me to pay for it. National sports - I've got ESPN for that. Local stories - hey, the TV newschannel websites have info on those. There just isn't enough content left in a newspaper worth me paying 75 cents for it. If I want to buy or sell something, quite honestly the newspaper just isn't as useful - ebay, craigslist are much more usable. The only classifides I've used in the last 10 years involved pets. For local work-for-hire contractors I use either phone book or my weekly free community paper because I know the people in that paper are in my small community so I like helping them out.
In short, unless you could get all agencies to collude and start charging for content it is unlikely newspapers will be able to offer a product I would pay 75 cents for a day to access. The 75cents buys me a cup of coffe (actually 55 cents) and that product has more value to me as a customer. If you were able to shut off all the free content out there I'd pay for it. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 03.31.09 |
| ->> small addition to my post - the reason I went from reading to skimming was three fold: quality of the writing and the story selection for starters. But the third part was I moved several times. My new 'home' location still doesn't feel like 'home' yet even though I've lived there for 8 years. I work in a different city entirely so 70% of the time I'm out of the community. As opposed to living, going to school and working in the same relative community. That made me more interested in what is going on that community. Maybe as my son grows up in this new community I'll feel more connnected to it and care more about local stories. Might make me a bad citizen but I think it's also a change in the demographic of readers. I suspect there are a lot more people like me out there now than say 20 years ago. I'm confident if I asked some of my friends/neighbors who worked in the community they would be much more interested in the local content than I am. Again, not offering solutions - if I had those, I'd be a wealthy man - just my experience as the "customer". |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:26 AM on 04.01.09 |
->> A lot of things killed newspapers in the U.S., but the numbers indicate that the slide started just after World War II -- which points to television as a primary factor.
Since newspapers maintained a relatively large profit margin right up to the final drain circle, owners had no impetus to modify their products to better serve their markets. By the time their bottom lines started seriously contracting back in the mid 90s, the Internet was waiting in the wings with the coup de grace. Owners moved too late with half-hearted attempts to "modernize."
--Mark |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|