Tim H.

Newspapers: Three Nails, One Coffin

Jeff Jarvis we get it!!! You think Newspapers are dead. Geezz. Tell you what Jeff I work for Gannett and yeah they treat their employee's like crap. BUT Jeff I bought 9,000 shares of GCI stock at $3.60 in my 401K in June mainly because of negative nellies like you and the high short interest. Sold 7000 shares today at $8.65. What is that? $45,000 in profit? Yeah I lost money last year (33% hit) but whose singing the tune today Jeff? I was down 11% for this year now up around 40%. What Jeff doesn't do is give you a timeline date when newspapers will be obsolete. Newspaper stocks are now trading stocks. With heavy short interest and some DD there is risk/reward potential. There are profits to be made in some of these companies. You just have to keep your nose to the grindstone. No doubt Gannett has some debt issues but fact is Gannett still making money. Jobs come back in improving economy GCI owning 50% interest in website such as Career Builder will increase revenue. As it is GCI came close to my $9 target. So I sold majority of it. A nice freaking trade thanks to people such as Jeff Jarvis. Thanks Jeff. keep up the negative slant.

The Unraveling of Newspaper Economics

I still think newspaper have a role and it is LOCALITY! You can get the national/international news from other media especially online. But local stories... Human interest stories... People still like to read that. What person/family still doesn't like to get story about themselves or area/a picture in the local city newspaper? From personal example. My aunt gave up subscription awhile back. Well there was a story about her son in business section. Yeah she could read it and print it online. But she also ran out bought several copies. Look at Obama winning election. All the newspapers people ran out and bought because of first black President. I know several people who wanted press plates. Also include local political squabbles or scandals. Just saying you can SELL that to advertisers & subscribers.

Outlawing Links Won't Save Newspapers

Sam you are wrong!!! When a website such as Huffington Post reports a story rephrasing the headline and commenting on subject. Then links the story with a paraphrase: READ THE WHOLE STORY HERE. The link in turns takes you to say... Wash Post story. The Post or any newspaper/print media should be entitled to some kind of revenue payment as compensation. SINCE the website is using that journalist work and his employer is not being compensated for the money said journalist is being paid to report. In a nutshell you are wrong Sam. Same goes with AP's complaint against Google. These web site's should pay a royalty fee to print media content which they are using for free. Then proclaiming the death of newspapers. Freedom of press will sorely be harmed if all print operations seize to exist. Web only sites do not have the financial resources to do say Watergate reporting. Nor do they have the journalistic integrity with regards to in depth investigative reporting. This topic may not save newspapers. But they have a legit complaint. I hope newspaper's SUE online sites for filfering their content for free and gaining AD revenue at their expense. You are flat wrong and no suprise by your opinion considering who butters your bread Sam.

Newspaper Economics at Zero?

This Craig Huber is wrong! There was just a story out off Seeking Alpha week or so ago from another writer who was friends with LA Times editor. The editor crunched numbers on an LA Times Online only business model. After cost cuts etc... Said model would be profitable. Sooo say NY Times filed for chapter 11 and erased all it's debt, cut the costs necessary for online paper etc... Then ran all it's owned papers as online only. Your going tell me NY Times wouldn't turn a profit??? Now as a newspaper reader I don't want that to happen. I am merely pointing out this barclays analyst is wrong. WORD for the wise. I realize bad situation in industry. But be very wary of seeking alpha writers and analysts who comment on industry. Very few cover industry and same goes for seeking alpha writers... I follow one's advice who over a long time have commented on industry. Ron Fountier of Seeking alpha is one. The writer for CBS Friedman is another one. I will use an example: Showing my bias I work for gannett. A co worker talked to a finnacial advisor and she told him Gannett was going bankrupt that he better get another job etc... gannett has issues but still made 25 cents a share (77 mil) in profit last qtr. Now just recently a value fund investment company increased it's shares in Gannett by 7.9% to almost 13% now owning $80 + mil in Gannett stock. New investment equaled around $50 mil. So whose dvice would you believe here? Some anaonymous financial advisor saying GCI is going bankrupt or someone who just invested almost $50 mil more in stock at $2.60. Stock at $3.50. My point being I follow where the money flows. Not saying GCI a good investment but I would question the argument GCI is going bankrupt any time soon. Long term no one knows...

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.

Newspapers 'Rightsizing'? More Like Frightsizing

Ken I appreciate your articles on the newsprint industry. As you mentioned in an earlier piece about McClatchy's coverage of Guantamano. Good journalists from quality brands are needed online and in print. Of course the bloggers will disagree. But who is of more quality. A news reporter who checks his facts etc... Or someone of Dredge's ilk? It's not a good thing what's happening to the industry. Not blaming the internet. That is lost advertising and the newspaper companies slow reaction to it's affect. As far back as 1991 Warren Buffett warned newspapers about the challenges ahead. Their was a collective yawn.

One thing I will mention that you touched on regarding Tribune. Tribune is getting the headlines with it's massive cutting fueling the naysayers about industry. However in hindsight Zell's massive leveraged debt deal to buy Tribune should have been nixed. Tribune has a $4 Billion dollar debt/bond payment due at end of 09. This debt pressure is leading to the cuts at what were once quality papers. It's not good for Tribune, for employees, the industry or the public. Corruption in government is watched by the media.

While the industry as a whole is facing tremendous challenges. No other media companies of Tribune's size are facing the kind of debt issues Tribune is facing. Maybe McClatchy but McClatchy got itself in trouble buying KnightRidder. Reality is no more buying up newspapers but instead buying online/web companies.

Newspapers: Not a Zero-Sum Game - A Minus-Sum Game

I work at a Print publishing plant for Gannett. Don't ask about working for them because I never chose too (Company got bought out in 2000 by GCI). Excluding how I feel about Gannett. I can tell you that even in these troubling/downsizing times. We are printing all kinds of commercial print other than just newspapers. Print is changing and downsizing. But there will always be a segment of population that is not tech savvy. That will never have computers etc... Now my timeframe? Well how about my life time (I am 44). The key is finding a business model that keeps the companies if not thriving at least surviving. Case in point: WPO's Kaplan educational services. Newspapers can diversify there company. GCI offers a nice dividend at it's current price (over 5%).