The Future of Ad Spending Is Not in Print

This is a disturbing pair of charts for anyone still holding out hope that ad dollars are going to come gushing back into print once this pesky little recession is all sorted out. Is there anyone like that left? Well, Time Warner chairman Jeff Bewkes said not too long ago that more than half of the ad decline in publishing is cyclical, not secular, and Associated Press CEO Tom Curley said Monday that the journalism profession is "going to undergo some enormous growth after we get through this valley." So, yes.

But just look at how neatly ad spending fluctuations in each medium correspond to audience gains or losses. (The charts are via the Project for Excellence in Journalism.)

It's not a perfect correlation; newspapers and magazines are losing ad dollars far faster than they're losing readers. On the other hand, cable TV and especially the web are attracting new eyeballs way faster than they are dollars. When the ad spending tide comes back in, that's where it will flow to first.

Comments

[ChicagoDude:]

I am a media buyer for a midwestern retailer.

We have tried television and radio, and nothing compares to the response we get off of newspapers. Radio is losing audience to CDs and IPODS. Television is losing to 1). TiVo; 2). 180 + cable channels which dilutes the viewing audience; 3). The internet. I can watch cable shows for free off the internet. I don't need cable anymore.

Far too much attention has been given towards newspapers and not enough to the health of alternative media. Television will evolve into HD computers with computers games, movies, old tv shows. That means BILLIONS of options. Radio is already dead (as the recent problems of Clear Channel radio prove) and Valassis is in it's death spiral because of high costs (stock gone from $42 to $1.70 shows).

How will retailers market? Print (whether it is mail or newspapers) are the only way to guarantee getting in front of a specific demographic. Broadcast is evolving into a multi-billion option mess.

Mar 24 02:20 PM

[BB in KY:]

I applaude your logic and experience. Thanks for this sound comment.


On Mar 24 02:20 PM User 382190 wrote:

> I am a media buyer for a midwestern retailer.
>
> We have tried television and radio, and nothing compares to the response
> we get off of newspapers. Radio is losing audience to CDs and IPODS.
> Television is losing to 1). TiVo; 2). 180 + cable channels which
> dilutes the viewing audience; 3). The internet. I can watch cable
> shows for free off the internet. I don't need cable anymore.
>
> Far too much attention has been given towards newspapers and not
> enough to the health of alternative media. Television will evolve
> into HD computers with computers games, movies, old tv shows. That
> means BILLIONS of options. Radio is already dead (as the recent problems
> of Clear Channel radio prove) and Valassis is in it's death spiral
> because of high costs (stock gone from $42 to $1.70 shows).
>
> How will retailers market? Print (whether it is mail or newspapers)
> are the only way to guarantee getting in front of a specific demographic.
> Broadcast is evolving into a multi-billion option mess.

Mar 24 03:10 PM

[jay fredric...:]

Glad to see there are still believers in print. I also find it hard to believe that CABLE viewership is up nearly 35% in one year? No way, I repeat, no way, are those numbers correct. So the whole idea that ad dollars will flow to cable once the recession is over is not logical. Cable is a way to reach defined demographics ( like sports loving men on ESPN), or women interested in real estate ( the various home shows out there), but cable is not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Jay Fredrickson
i-5south.com

Mar 25 10:34 AM