The Financial Storm May Very Well Kill Print Media

If the Storm of 2008 will do anything in the media world, it is kill print.  Let’s face it, had the economy not tanked, then I think print-centric traditional media companies would have slowly but surely built up online units that could have mustered enough revenue to maintain some kind of traction in their market. But now, I think the contraction will be so quick and so severe that they’ll have to cut costs drastically, reduce any efforts to expand online, lose and demoralize staff and have little to show for it down the road.  Judge the headlines yourself:

- As though following the advice of Netscape founder Marc Andressen, The Christian Science Monitor announces it will cease print publication next April, choosing to focus on its web site.

- Time Inc. announces a major restructuring, including 600 layoffs.

- Gannett (GCI) plans to cut 10% of its newspaper workforce, but none at USA Today.

- Doubleday Publishing lays off 16, or 10% of its staff.

- Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) cuts its 2008 revenue forecast, and reports a 25% decline in its publishing division’s revenue.

- McGraw-Hill (MHP) trims 270 jobs company-wide.

- The Los Angeles Times arranges to cut 10% of its editorial staff, or 75 jobs.

- Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s downgrade The Washington Post Co.’s (WPO) outlook from “stable” to “negative.”

- The Star-Ledger of Newark, NJ, says it will cut its newsroom staff by 40% by the end of the year.

- In one bright spot, New York Times (NYT) executive editor Bill Keller says he sees no further staff reductions.

While I’ve hesitated to fall in the “print is dead” camp, I think that this storm will drown their chances for success.  A major problem is that many of these print companies have not invested enough in video, which is at the center of growth on the internet. Now they will lose any appetite to invest in this growth.

Comments

[WorldTraveler:]

This is a poorly written story. The author has done little more than provide us with the obvious "print may not survive" and here are a few shallow facts to support it. Established media is supposed to be what keeps this garbage from getting "printed".

2008 Oct 31 08:43 PM

[User 286028:]

print is contracting, no doubt. some of it is as newspapers shed poor demographics (and watch out when USA Today and the Wall Street Jounal finally have to admit how many newspapers they give out free or nearly free each day). But print accounts for 90 percent of newspaper company revenues, and without it there would be no comprehensive news report available for Google, Yahoo and others to link to.

2008 Nov 01 08:07 AM

[notsosmart:]

think the locals will survive.finding out who died yesterday seems very important to a lot of home folks.the big guys will fade away as the younger coming generation is not interested in reading newspapers.they are not even that interested in reading anything.a lot cant read that well.

2008 Nov 01 09:40 AM

[BlueOkie:]

I agree with World Traveler, poorly written. MHP does more than just do printing.

2008 Nov 01 09:54 AM

[Tim H.:]

Agree about issues. However did you see what happened day after election. Newspapers were a hot commodity around country. Don't give me this BS about print is dead. Just as money changing hands wil never be dead. There is always a niche market that does not want to "change" and holds on to the old. Not everyone has a computer, satellite TV, cell phone etc... I notice that alot of columnists write these stories don't "SEE" this side of human nature. Too busy self involved in their own interests to recognize that others different from them don't think the same way. Don't get me wrong. Print has alot of issues. My own sense is that print companies who were struggling to get by will go under. A very select media companies that are diversified such as Wash. Post, NY Times, Gannett etc... Will survive. I know Gannett has invested in an online video company providing video to it's websites.

2008 Nov 07 09:49 AM

[Midwest:]

Yet another "Print is dead" cry from somebody on the internet.

Is print hurting? Of course it is but so is tourism. Will people permanently stop traveling for pleasure? Doubtful.

The middle class is b-r-o-k-e. Without the engine of consumer spending moving this economy forward, everybody suffers. Once companies see a realistic earnings level (not the inflated ones they've had for years now) they freak out and pull back on their ad spend. That aspect of this problem is cyclical but will bottom out at some point. Ad spending is down everywhere, including the web.

One thing that will come from this mess is that advertisers will demand greater accountability from their chosen mediums and that will be the first step in stripping bare the fact that the internet does not deliver customers like print, TV or radio does. The internet has been shown time and time again to be a very cheap way to advertise while returning very, very few customers.

Why don't websites charge based on pay per actions versus page views? Because they'd go broke while being honest. There are so few click throughs that the investment in online advertising is not worth the virtual paper it's printed on. The web is about delivering your company's product directly to the consumer, it's not an effective venue to advertise in.

2008 Nov 13 12:22 AM