Tim H.

A Paperless News World: Kinsley Nails It Again

I agree Vobo... As Jarvis points out about Huffington Post. Go read Huffington. Majority of articles on Huffington are stolen from other news sources especially print media and then refabricated with Huffington's own headlines. Their is a short Huffington rift on article. Then a link to news source which is not Huffington. Huffington has it's own bloggers and reporters (Sam Stein). But mainly it's content is linked from print/online sources. It is in effect a left leaning news reader website. Which is fine. Similar but not as popular news websites abound on web. I don't agree about newspapers charging fees to read their news. But I do agree that newspapers will figure out how to charge websites like Huffington a fee for using their content which helps keeps the Huffington Post relevant. In other words what do newspapers GET out of news websites filfering their content to be used for their own content?


On Apr 06 05:59 PM Vobogeck wrote:

> Just out on Reuters: "Associated Press unveiled rate cuts on Monday
> to help member newspapers reeling from declining advertising revenue
> and said it would sue websites that use its members' articles without
> permission."
>
> Jarvis assumes a static status quo, which is nonsense. The AP response
> is typical of what will happen, as the news providers stop giving
> their stories away free to Google etc. Although they may be slow
> to change, the newspapers will adapt and thrive. They will compensate
> for reduced advertising with a higher subscription, for those readers
> willing to pay for in-depth news. If they don't we will be left with
> the worthless drivel that passes for journalism on sites like Seeking
> Bears.
>
> I am curious Jeff: how much does Seeking Bears pay you for posting
> on its web site? Do you get a cut of its advertising revenue? If
> not, how much longer will you continue to give away your time for
> free?

'The Market and the Internet Don't Care if You Make Money'

I won't argue your business model points. BUT what about Obama's election. Newspapers were sold out worldwide. My point is not that the author is wrong and newspaper CEO's do need to change. I bristle with the suggestion that Print is dead or will be dead. When that comment is made what is the meaning "Print will die." Does it mean newspapers will die or PRINT will die? There will always be PRINT! The day after Obama's election proves their is still an interest in Print. Now I know people did not run out to read the articles but rather bought the papers as a collector's item. Which is my point. Printing is more than newspapers. There is commercial printing, printing magazines, printing labels on wine bottles etc... Not everyone has a blackberry and not everyone wants to sit in doctor's office waiting room looking at a blackberry. Me? I rather read a magazine or a newspaper when I am sitting on the toilet taking a dump then looking at a high tech berry or holding a lap top. As for GOOGLE... Agree about their business model. But I know the CEO of Google takes no pleasure in seeing what has happened to the newspaper business. It's very expensive to do the expansive in depth reporting about an important issue. Newspapers and their websites such as the washington Post are still best equipped. When I read a major story I look to the Wall Street Journal, Wash Post, Slate or some other major media center online rather than a blog site.

The Financial Storm May Very Well Kill Print Media

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.

Too Late for Newspapers to Turn the Tide?

On July 29th gannett announced it had mad a minority investment in Mogulus. A New York based Internet video platform. I know Gannett has been webcasting some video off it's newspaper websites. Indystar.com for example webcast Obama interview with Indianapolis Star Editorial board during the May primarys. It received high volume of hits. Is this the kind of video investment newspapers should make you speak of Ashkan?

Beyond 2Q Revenue Declines: AdMan's 9 Imperatives for New Growth

I agree with above poster. Everyone knows what'sgoing on with industry. Anyone can point out all the problems. How many naysayers can actually offer solutions to the problems. Don't give me "there are no solutions" response. You find someone with innovative intelligent ideas that can be executed correctly. That person will find a solution to some of the problems in industry. BTW I work in print production at Gannett. The production plant I work for does alot of commercial printing that has nothing to do with the newspaper that hits the street. printing circulars for retail such a Rural King (1 million copies per week), Auto Books, Shop Local, Riverboat Gambling circulars plus many other Advertisers that are not in the local newspaper.