| 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
The death of newspapers has never been so cute...
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 8:20 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> From what is perhaps my favorite comic strip of all time, Pearls Before Swine, comes a light-hearted look at the newspaper industry today.
http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-04-20/
Makes the situation feel a little less painful... |
|
Andrew Knapik, Photographer, Assistant
|
Lincoln Park | MI | USA | Posted: 8:33 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> So true |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:41 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> I don't know whether to laugh or cry. |
|
Michael Johnson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Geneseo | NY | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> Thanks Kevin,
That's a good one and so true.
I want to know who the genus was that first said "Lets charge for print but give everything away for free on the internet"....what a great way to kill an industry |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 10:26 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> "I want to know who the genus was that first said "Lets charge for print but give everything away for free on the internet"....what a great way to kill an industry "
I want to know his species.................... |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 10:36 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> We already know his IQ .... |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:40 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> Michael and David, I want to know if they've been laid off yet. |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 10:50 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> It isn't the giving it away free part on the I-Net that killed the newspaper business. It's not having a good business model to make it pay.
My question is this... Why is Internet advertising cheaper than print advertising. At our community web site we are drawing 40 to 50,000 unique visitors a month now 24/7. And I feel we are not charging enough.
When print goes away, and journalists are forced to change occupations and advertisers realize just how difficult it is to get their message out... the industry will turn around.
I've always felt, unlike newspaper management, that good content,i.e. articles and photos, draw the reader which attracts the advetiser. Give them the content and the advertisers will follow and be willing to pay for their presence.
Just my 2 cents. |
|
Michael Johnson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Geneseo | NY | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> Your 2 cents is right... it just the people running the show that don't get it. I feel us in the trenches understand.
Its really the same problem that you see in the auto industry. The guy's running the show have lost touch with what sells. They think that they can force feed crap to people and that we'll all just sit back and buy it.
We need people in charge that understand what works and what doesn't. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 11:24 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> Steve, I'd nearly forgotten about that comic. Thanks for the link! |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:42 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> "Just my 2 cents"
Is that the cost-per-million ad rate on your web site? |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:44 AM on 04.20.09 |
->> Steve,
I love Wiley and the tag at the bottom said it all.
After all of the bitching, moaning, layoffs, cutoffs, and overall stupidity, it comes down to something as "you can't give it away for free".
David, your question is correct. Answer: Jellyfish. No backbone, less brains, but can sure sting. |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> Absolutely not. Our website charges advertisers by the month... just like a newspaper does, but I still feel we are not at the price point we need to be. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Armando Solares, Photographer
|
Englewood | FL | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 04.20.09 |
->> "faqs09 wrote:
So they're going to withhold stories that are of "major impact, importance and interest" to readers until Sunday in an effort to sell more papers? Can't wait to see what these exciting stories will be(I'll read them on here on Monday). Feeble attempt to prop-up a dying printed medium which is quickly becoming a dinosaur."
This is a comment from one of the readers of the Monitor.
It pretty much sums up that effort. |
|
John Bowersmith, Photographer
|
Lubbock | Tx | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> Almost everywhere you go it's the people in the trenches who think the commanders in the nice, safe bunker have no idea what is going on. At my paper we don't understand why we can't get a 15second add in front of our videos, or any number of a handful of ideas that should make us more money can't be implemented online. Probably the same way the people in marketing think they know how an event should be photographed. Newspapers have some serious problems based on a business model that is over 100 years old. Will someone figure it out before the world is out of fish wrap for good? I hope so. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:08 PM on 04.20.09 |
->> Why is Internet advertising cheaper than print advertising
Print newspapers have a limited number of ad spaces. Each space can only have one advertiser on a given day. It is a rare, constrained resource...which means you can charge more per unit.
Web sites have no such constraints. There are an infinite number of ad positions (hello, galleries!) and each ad space can rotate every single minute of every day. When it's not rare you can't charge a lot of money for it.
Web ads also suffer from a huge problem of accountability, and not in the way you think. With a print newspaper ad an advertiser never *really* knows how effective the ad might be. This is particularly true with branding campaigns. If Honda does a big multi-city ad buy, they just want to see Honda everywhere, and in print they just get circ numbers. If your circ numbers are good and the ad looks right, they're usually happy. A good ad sales guy can do some hand waving and all is well.
Web ads are the exact opposite: The advertiser knows EXACTLY how many people saw the ad, and they know how effective it was based on the number of click-thrus. This is great for the advertiser but brutal for the publisher. No more hiding - all of the metrics are right there...and if your site isn't pulling the numbers, there's nowhere to hide.
The other big issue has to do with ad blocking on the internet. Every major browser has some form of ad blocking available, and some (like AdBlockPlus for Firefox) are really, really god. Nobody likes ads on the internet, and there is simple, free, easy technology to filter ads for the user.
This is why web ads are pennies per thousand versus comparable print ads...and why it will not matter how good you make your news site, you aren't going to pay for it with advertising. |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 4:39 PM on 04.20.09 |
->> David... you make some really good points, particularly for click through advertising that charges by the click through.
I'm in a much smaller market and our ad spots are sold based on position on the page, whether or not it is a stand alone ad or a rotating ad. We sell both.
Obviously and advertiser doesn't advertise unless they feel it will get them results. Honda, Coca Cola etc, advertise on the basis that even if they only get a 2 percent return on the advertising, it literally means millions on the bottom line.
In our market, we are focusing on local advertisers who have to get their message out, and quite frankly they are coming to us because we have proven that we can get them results. Advertisers tell us all the time that their advertising with us is working and that is very satisfying.
At some point, newspapers and other print media will have to figure out how to model their on-line presence in a profitable manner.
It still comes back to content. If you are providing the content, which is one thing an on-line presence can do for you on an ever changing basis throughout the day, then your advertisers consumers will come back on a regular basis to see what is new. |
|
Andrew Carpenean, Photographer
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:39 PM on 04.20.09 |
->> Phase 1 - collect news and put on internet
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - profit |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 12:30 AM on 04.21.09 |
| ->> Ronnie... Phase 2 = Sell Advertising |
|
Lane Hickenbottom, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | usa | Posted: 12:43 AM on 04.21.09 |
->> phase 2 = micro charge for content.
Make it quick, easy, and cheap. $.05 for a story. Just click here. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 04.21.09 |
->> These guys are getting closer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/media/15brill.html?ref=technolog...
The bundling approach is important. People won't pay $0.05 per article on a dozen different sites to read news, but they will pay a flat rate if they can access dozens of sites for that rate.
But to make their effort work, they need a significant number of media properties to buy into it. While I think the individual newspapers would be wild about the idea, I think their corporate masters are going to screw it up.
It's not in the genetic makeup of big corporations like Gannett and others to admit that they can't do anything on their own. They all want to control the ball, particularly in a room full of competitors. It's in their genes...they can't help themselves. It may start rosy, but infighting will destroy it. "Why should I drive traffic to my competition? People are PAYING to get to MY sites, not theirs!" You can almost hear it already. The groups will splinter and do their own things (and probably fail), and that will be that. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 04.21.09 |
->> Thanks David, that article gives a glimmer of hope.
I have long thought that bundling makes sense, as most people don't want to log in, enter a password and/or their credit card number for a $.05 online transaction. The other options are to pre-pay for a finite number of articles, or to offer a monthly subscription.
I can see the bundling concept taking off if the bundlers can offer their subscriptions along with other monthly services. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc. could all compete for the right to offer their customers a news subscription as part of their monthly wireless service. Same with DirecTV/ Dish Network, Comcast, etc.
That might work on a per-article basis too. I'd guess that like me, most people would rather pay $.05 per article at the end of the month on my cell phone bill than on a per-article basis. If people had to enter a credit card number every time they wanted to send a text message, texting would never have taken off. |
|
Lane Hickenbottom, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | usa | Posted: 11:35 AM on 04.21.09 |
->> " If people had to enter a credit card number every time they wanted to send a text message, texting would never have taken off."
I agree. That wouldn't be quick and easy. But there are ways to make it work where you pay a service $20; the service works as a plugin to your browser. Each time you find some pay-per-view content you want to read, you simply click the button, $.05 comes off your account, and you are reading about last night's 6-car-pileup on I-90.
If such a method were to be developed it'll be interesting to see how the face of news changes. News providers will be prone to cover the news that pays the bills more so than covering the news it's readers "need". |
|
John Bowersmith, Photographer
|
Lubbock | Tx | USA | Posted: 5:05 PM on 04.21.09 |
->> I think the new Iphone software COULD do a lot for many news outlets. If people can subscribe to their favorite news source for say $5-$10/month and get breaking news pushed to the app it will be excellent. Also, put some adds on it like the AP, NYT and USA Today are doing with there apps and you can charge a lot more for the adds. Web page real estate is nearly worthless. Iphone real estate begins to take on value again.
Think of it, you're walking to your car to go home and your phone goes "bing" buzzes a bit and you see it's new news. You take a look and it's a story about the fatal on I-25 that has northbound lanes blocked, more later. You pick a new route home and life is good.
With the billing process automated you most likey won't notice the pinch of $10/month and to me it's worth it. Then all of a sudden newspapers have "subscribers" again. The add sales reps can wave their magic hands again as David suggested and we are almost back in the game. Theoretically adds could even cost more if placed in an app.
It may just be wishful thinking on my part, but I hope and feel something like this can save newspapers. |
|
Joseph Molieri, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ardmore | PA | US | Posted: 5:11 PM on 04.21.09 |
| ->> Theres a good book titled "The News About the News" which talks about the whole idea of how ultimately good content is the only savior to the news industry but the media and newspapers have gotten away from that and settled for quick topical stories. I hope the theory of good content is true.... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|