NP Refugee's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/298378/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/143203-what-s-the-boston-globe-worth-about-a-buck?source=feed#comment-546946 546946 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:09:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/141644-high-operating-leverage-pressuring-newspaper-companies?source=feed#comment-542262 542262 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:48:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142519-why-gm-s-not-the-only-company-rush-limbaugh-should-boycott?source=feed#comment-541973 541973
Either way, you're a disservice to the trade and reinforce the notion that journalists can't be trusted.]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:32:00 -0400
Either way, you're a disservice to the trade and reinforce the notion that journalists can't be trusted.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141378-online-advertising-stop-selling-scarcity?source=feed#comment-538702 538702
Having spent a great deal of time in my career across various media, I can tell you that the notion you're exploring isn't necessarily new. Television has been acting on that for some time. There's a reason that USA Cable Network is heavily rated with viewers. They used to go after quantity with shows that were usually shoot 'em up, appeal to the masses sorts of stuff. They got the most viewers, and consequently demanded higher rates for advertising.

On the other hand, quality networks like Discovery had smaller audiences, but important audiences watching quality programming.

All of this translated into advertising rates. The same could be said for the advertising online. So much depends on what one is trying to accomplish with advertising--and that's the point. If everyone starts voting on advertising, it won't ever be effectiveness; it will become an exercise in populism. Some of the most effective ads I've seen don't make me happy, but they get me to move.

I know your background is primarily on the journalistic side. Trust me... having users vote on how good an ad is would be a recipe for disaster.

The Google model is a good one, however--at least relative to Adwords. It is commodity trading, for the most part. Bidding on ways to reach an audience sets a price for the ad. Let the market set the rates. And for what it's worth, most newspapers are out of step with a rapidly changing environment. Most BT nets are in the 7-10.00 range for CPMs while newspapers are taking advantage of ignorance in the marketplace and selling the Y! BT for nearly double that. Once the word gets out....

But I'm concerned that what you're proposing will promote actions to get votes, not to necessarily motivate the consumer to take action on the behalf of the client represented. That's what should motivate all ads. Those are two mutually exclusive objectives. ]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:46:23 -0400
Having spent a great deal of time in my career across various media, I can tell you that the notion you're exploring isn't necessarily new. Television has been acting on that for some time. There's a reason that USA Cable Network is heavily rated with viewers. They used to go after quantity with shows that were usually shoot 'em up, appeal to the masses sorts of stuff. They got the most viewers, and consequently demanded higher rates for advertising.

On the other hand, quality networks like Discovery had smaller audiences, but important audiences watching quality programming.

All of this translated into advertising rates. The same could be said for the advertising online. So much depends on what one is trying to accomplish with advertising--and that's the point. If everyone starts voting on advertising, it won't ever be effectiveness; it will become an exercise in populism. Some of the most effective ads I've seen don't make me happy, but they get me to move.

I know your background is primarily on the journalistic side. Trust me... having users vote on how good an ad is would be a recipe for disaster.

The Google model is a good one, however--at least relative to Adwords. It is commodity trading, for the most part. Bidding on ways to reach an audience sets a price for the ad. Let the market set the rates. And for what it's worth, most newspapers are out of step with a rapidly changing environment. Most BT nets are in the 7-10.00 range for CPMs while newspapers are taking advantage of ignorance in the marketplace and selling the Y! BT for nearly double that. Once the word gets out....

But I'm concerned that what you're proposing will promote actions to get votes, not to necessarily motivate the consumer to take action on the behalf of the client represented. That's what should motivate all ads. Those are two mutually exclusive objectives. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139930-ft-on-the-future-of-newspapers-nyah-nyah?source=feed#comment-521143 521143
The real issue here is that there are readily available substitutes in a fast-paced information age that have quickly come into the market, at a pace no other medium has ever experienced. Newspapers are not only having to deal with better mousetraps, they aren't really used to even having to contend with another mousetrap at all.

But to lay it all at the feet of content points to just one problem. A true examination would find that the assault on the traditional newspaper model is coming from several directions. Delivery--the speed of news to a desktop is superior to someone driving by a house at 5:30 AM and dropping what's already stale in the yard (and entrusting the most critical customer relationship link to the weakest in the chain--another topic altogether); News--so many sources for what the newspaper used to claim as a local franchise are available in so many places. We're talking the exact editorial content--wire stories, comics, syndicated editorial. The newspapers have lost their exclusivity in the local market. Perhaps the FT can charge because a large volume of what they have as their franchise is exclusive. Exclusivity is a conversation that has to take place within every newspaper in the country, because that which isn't exclusive has far less value in the current environment. I've never heard a newspaper talk about their exclusive content, because to them, they've considered all of it exclusive to date. No longer the case.

And then, there's the substitution of their lifeblood: classified advertising. Craig Newmark may have done a lot more to damage newspapers than Google ever thought about in their news aggregation. Even in the mid nineties, we used to calculate and project the cost in operating profits from just a 15% loss in classified ad volume, were it to occur. As I recall, the loss in overall newspaper profits was calculated to be around 35%, since classified advertising was such a high profit margin sector of the business. Even then, we were contemplating the peril and knew trouble was brewing. Remember a little thing called "Classifieds 2000?" And what about Microsoft's Sidewalk project? They were just slightly ahead of their time but they got our attention. Craig Newmark, however, was right on time.

So the problems are, and have been coming from all sides, not just one, creating a perfect storm for newspapers. Jeff, while your primary focus is on the news/journalism/content side of the equation in your piece, the issues are far broader and more complex. Thus, any solution will likely be the same. But it really starts as a discussion in market microeconomics, readily available substitution, and exclusivity.

Dealing with those as fundamental problems are where the solution, if one exists, lies.]]> Thu, 28 May 2009 10:19:04 -0400
The real issue here is that there are readily available substitutes in a fast-paced information age that have quickly come into the market, at a pace no other medium has ever experienced. Newspapers are not only having to deal with better mousetraps, they aren't really used to even having to contend with another mousetrap at all.

But to lay it all at the feet of content points to just one problem. A true examination would find that the assault on the traditional newspaper model is coming from several directions. Delivery--the speed of news to a desktop is superior to someone driving by a house at 5:30 AM and dropping what's already stale in the yard (and entrusting the most critical customer relationship link to the weakest in the chain--another topic altogether); News--so many sources for what the newspaper used to claim as a local franchise are available in so many places. We're talking the exact editorial content--wire stories, comics, syndicated editorial. The newspapers have lost their exclusivity in the local market. Perhaps the FT can charge because a large volume of what they have as their franchise is exclusive. Exclusivity is a conversation that has to take place within every newspaper in the country, because that which isn't exclusive has far less value in the current environment. I've never heard a newspaper talk about their exclusive content, because to them, they've considered all of it exclusive to date. No longer the case.

And then, there's the substitution of their lifeblood: classified advertising. Craig Newmark may have done a lot more to damage newspapers than Google ever thought about in their news aggregation. Even in the mid nineties, we used to calculate and project the cost in operating profits from just a 15% loss in classified ad volume, were it to occur. As I recall, the loss in overall newspaper profits was calculated to be around 35%, since classified advertising was such a high profit margin sector of the business. Even then, we were contemplating the peril and knew trouble was brewing. Remember a little thing called "Classifieds 2000?" And what about Microsoft's Sidewalk project? They were just slightly ahead of their time but they got our attention. Craig Newmark, however, was right on time.

So the problems are, and have been coming from all sides, not just one, creating a perfect storm for newspapers. Jeff, while your primary focus is on the news/journalism/content side of the equation in your piece, the issues are far broader and more complex. Thus, any solution will likely be the same. But it really starts as a discussion in market microeconomics, readily available substitution, and exclusivity.

Dealing with those as fundamental problems are where the solution, if one exists, lies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138893-the-journalism-bubble?source=feed#comment-512756 512756
My opinion is that the journalists who are committed to the trade will end up writing for suburban papers (for a fair wage) who will take on the traditional role of the metro paper, providing investigative insights into the communities where the audience is deeply passionate. That is fertile ground yet to be tilled. Suburban weeklies will become suburban 3-a-weeks. They will augment the chicken dinner, Eagle Scout award stories with investigative stories that seek to hold the powerful accountable and serve as a voice of the community in that which matters most because it's that which is closest to their homes.

I certainly hope I'm correct.

The point is, there is still a need for journalism, but it has to be fresh and insightful and not the run-of-the-mill regurgitation of someone else's insights and investigative work. So much material in a metro is a hodge-podge of syndicated, borrowed, nonfactual material that the newspapers come off as, frankly, lazy.

One colleague used to describe the newsroom as "the fat, dumb, and happy." I always used to say that they'd produce better quality journalism if one could find a way to compensate them on the basis of a "reader resonator meter."]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 10:12:05 -0400
My opinion is that the journalists who are committed to the trade will end up writing for suburban papers (for a fair wage) who will take on the traditional role of the metro paper, providing investigative insights into the communities where the audience is deeply passionate. That is fertile ground yet to be tilled. Suburban weeklies will become suburban 3-a-weeks. They will augment the chicken dinner, Eagle Scout award stories with investigative stories that seek to hold the powerful accountable and serve as a voice of the community in that which matters most because it's that which is closest to their homes.

I certainly hope I'm correct.

The point is, there is still a need for journalism, but it has to be fresh and insightful and not the run-of-the-mill regurgitation of someone else's insights and investigative work. So much material in a metro is a hodge-podge of syndicated, borrowed, nonfactual material that the newspapers come off as, frankly, lazy.

One colleague used to describe the newsroom as "the fat, dumb, and happy." I always used to say that they'd produce better quality journalism if one could find a way to compensate them on the basis of a "reader resonator meter."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137271-getting-past-newspapers-past?source=feed#comment-501871 501871
It's so common now--almost unthinkable that they wouldn't allow reader comment. That group is unable to think differently.

They, Dean included, spend most of their energy trying to turn back time.]]> Wed, 13 May 2009 09:35:55 -0400
It's so common now--almost unthinkable that they wouldn't allow reader comment. That group is unable to think differently.

They, Dean included, spend most of their energy trying to turn back time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136913-sorry-rupert-micropayments-mean-microprofits?source=feed#comment-500427 500427
The NPs thought (wrongly), or perhaps led their advertisers to believe that they were operating all-you-can-eat, when, in fact, their readership was eating cafeteria-style. Frankly, I've never known ANYONE who reads every single line of every paper, but the ad rates were predicated on inflated prices and egos, and the notion that a subscriber spent their entire day reading the newspaper. They actually had convinced advertisers that their subscribers read the paper cover-to-cover, when, in fact, the readership surveys should have given them a dose of reality. They should have been pricing the sections based on the readership of that section. And the whole "pass-around" theory of readership; don't even get me started. It is, after all, just an unproven theory.

I'm afraid the answer, Mr. Rifle, is that there is no strategy for a house of cards. The next evolution of NPs will be where the over-priced, over-inflated, ego-driven writers who really never worked very hard (because no one expected them to) will go to work (and work hard) for suburban papers who will, in the future, have to step up from chicken dinner, eagle scout stories and start holding the powerful accountable from the grass roots. Let's face it, most people in the suburbs really don't care what's happening in a metro center, unless it somehow affects them; but they DO care (dearly) about what's happening in the suburbs where they live .

And those suburban papers will have less ambitious profit goals (which sounds nicer than saying they will be less greedy) and will live very lean. Sort of like how newspapers used to be before fuzzy math and fuzzy logic were applied.]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 11:08:49 -0400
The NPs thought (wrongly), or perhaps led their advertisers to believe that they were operating all-you-can-eat, when, in fact, their readership was eating cafeteria-style. Frankly, I've never known ANYONE who reads every single line of every paper, but the ad rates were predicated on inflated prices and egos, and the notion that a subscriber spent their entire day reading the newspaper. They actually had convinced advertisers that their subscribers read the paper cover-to-cover, when, in fact, the readership surveys should have given them a dose of reality. They should have been pricing the sections based on the readership of that section. And the whole "pass-around" theory of readership; don't even get me started. It is, after all, just an unproven theory.

I'm afraid the answer, Mr. Rifle, is that there is no strategy for a house of cards. The next evolution of NPs will be where the over-priced, over-inflated, ego-driven writers who really never worked very hard (because no one expected them to) will go to work (and work hard) for suburban papers who will, in the future, have to step up from chicken dinner, eagle scout stories and start holding the powerful accountable from the grass roots. Let's face it, most people in the suburbs really don't care what's happening in a metro center, unless it somehow affects them; but they DO care (dearly) about what's happening in the suburbs where they live .

And those suburban papers will have less ambitious profit goals (which sounds nicer than saying they will be less greedy) and will live very lean. Sort of like how newspapers used to be before fuzzy math and fuzzy logic were applied.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135050-google-vs-ap-saber-rattling?source=feed#comment-490354 490354 Tue, 05 May 2009 11:59:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133575-newspaper-circulation-skids-another-7-over-latest-six-month-period?source=feed#comment-480847 480847 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:00:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/132581-perspective-on-john-malone-s-sirius-stance?source=feed#comment-474630 474630
If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, then talk radio goes to satellite radio. Whatever his motivation, he is betting on some event that will fundamentally alter the chess board.

I will say this about him too. I had to present my budget to he and several others every year. The others always appeared distracted--some to the point of reading the WSJ as I presented. Not John. He hung on every word I said and I felt he was scanning my brain. That is one seriously focused and engaged man.]]> Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:45:07 -0400
If the Fairness Doctrine comes back, then talk radio goes to satellite radio. Whatever his motivation, he is betting on some event that will fundamentally alter the chess board.

I will say this about him too. I had to present my budget to he and several others every year. The others always appeared distracted--some to the point of reading the WSJ as I presented. Not John. He hung on every word I said and I felt he was scanning my brain. That is one seriously focused and engaged man.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131937-newspapers-give-us-more-creativity-please?source=feed#comment-470872 470872
The AP deserves credit for herding the cats, but they also deserve criticism for having sold the newspaper industry's collective journalistic soul to the likes of Google and Yahoo!.

]]> Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:54:14 -0400
The AP deserves credit for herding the cats, but they also deserve criticism for having sold the newspaper industry's collective journalistic soul to the likes of Google and Yahoo!.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131062-on-the-constitutionality-of-a-newspaper-bailout?source=feed#comment-464419 464419
No thanks. The day they accept a dime from Uncle Sam is the day I'm an ex-newspaper reader because any sliver of credibility they have will be gone. Then they can dump all the money they want into it and it will be "red all over."

And if the newspapers accept a dime, they might as well be Robert Johnson at the Crossroads because their editorial souls will be gone. As it is now, they're teetering--maybe that's part of the problem.]]> Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:52:03 -0400
No thanks. The day they accept a dime from Uncle Sam is the day I'm an ex-newspaper reader because any sliver of credibility they have will be gone. Then they can dump all the money they want into it and it will be "red all over."

And if the newspapers accept a dime, they might as well be Robert Johnson at the Crossroads because their editorial souls will be gone. As it is now, they're teetering--maybe that's part of the problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129728-some-stats-on-an-unsustainable-model-print?source=feed#comment-455085 455085 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:13:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129609-newspapers-can-t-compete-with-us?source=feed#comment-453213 453213 comics.com; I can't get that on the newspaper's web site. I can get stocks from-what-1,000 different places? I can get the syndicated national stories from just about anywhere. Obits are available numerous places. I don't have any problem finding puzzles online from numerous sources. A great number of the published editorials are available on the commentators' web sites. All of that content used to be the NP franchise. So it's not just about Google, it's the cumulative effects of having commoditization of what the newspaper used to monopolize in a local market. Going from monopoly to commodity is a giant killer. I agree that the small town newspapers will be the ones that last. If you consider the papers closing shop thus far, most are in 2-newspaper towns (Seattle, Denver). But the small local papers seem to understand the need to drill down into the communities they serve--because they can, while big metros seem intent on being a national newspaper. Unless the big metros bust up their newsrooms and start small suburban bureaus that can go deep in communities while having a "most important" fill the main section, I'm pretty sure the erosion will not subside.

Think about this too: NPs don't put the local box scores and the other fine print online. To a local market, that's valuable.

I, for one, believe that Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. If you've been following the latest moves by the NP industry, there's a bit of interesting news where most have signed on to work with a search engine directly. If I were Murdoch, I would start a news search engine and sign on all the NPs as true partners. I would add some things the SEs don't currently do. I would have wild cards in search strings, so if you don't know some characters, you can use *, I would also allow searchers to index the search results according the date the article was published. Then I would cut off the Google and Yahoo! spiders. Goodness knows, promotion wouldn't be a problem.

News flash. Only 20% of most newspapers' visits come through search engines. Most NPs are bookmarked.

It would take a giant to make it happen, no doubt. Goodness knows, the NP companies can't get along to make it happen.

And I could almost argue that the suburbanization has had almost as profound an effect as the Internet on the precipitous drop in circulation. Publishing the latest antics about which councilperson is taking a bribe in a large market? Most people in the suburbs are embarrassed and think it's pathetic, but beyond that, they really don't care. It may as well be 500 miles away.

My prescription for survival is what everyone keeps telling the NPs: start digging deep into the communities and quit trying to cover the world. My fear is that they cannot get out of their own way to do that and the new NP model will be reinvented by those outside of the NP industry today with a fresh perspective and no ties to legacy systems and processes that are outdated.]]> Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:35:00 -0400 comics.com; I can't get that on the newspaper's web site. I can get stocks from-what-1,000 different places? I can get the syndicated national stories from just about anywhere. Obits are available numerous places. I don't have any problem finding puzzles online from numerous sources. A great number of the published editorials are available on the commentators' web sites. All of that content used to be the NP franchise. So it's not just about Google, it's the cumulative effects of having commoditization of what the newspaper used to monopolize in a local market. Going from monopoly to commodity is a giant killer. I agree that the small town newspapers will be the ones that last. If you consider the papers closing shop thus far, most are in 2-newspaper towns (Seattle, Denver). But the small local papers seem to understand the need to drill down into the communities they serve--because they can, while big metros seem intent on being a national newspaper. Unless the big metros bust up their newsrooms and start small suburban bureaus that can go deep in communities while having a "most important" fill the main section, I'm pretty sure the erosion will not subside.

Think about this too: NPs don't put the local box scores and the other fine print online. To a local market, that's valuable.

I, for one, believe that Murdoch knows exactly what he's doing. If you've been following the latest moves by the NP industry, there's a bit of interesting news where most have signed on to work with a search engine directly. If I were Murdoch, I would start a news search engine and sign on all the NPs as true partners. I would add some things the SEs don't currently do. I would have wild cards in search strings, so if you don't know some characters, you can use *, I would also allow searchers to index the search results according the date the article was published. Then I would cut off the Google and Yahoo! spiders. Goodness knows, promotion wouldn't be a problem.

News flash. Only 20% of most newspapers' visits come through search engines. Most NPs are bookmarked.

It would take a giant to make it happen, no doubt. Goodness knows, the NP companies can't get along to make it happen.

And I could almost argue that the suburbanization has had almost as profound an effect as the Internet on the precipitous drop in circulation. Publishing the latest antics about which councilperson is taking a bribe in a large market? Most people in the suburbs are embarrassed and think it's pathetic, but beyond that, they really don't care. It may as well be 500 miles away.

My prescription for survival is what everyone keeps telling the NPs: start digging deep into the communities and quit trying to cover the world. My fear is that they cannot get out of their own way to do that and the new NP model will be reinvented by those outside of the NP industry today with a fresh perspective and no ties to legacy systems and processes that are outdated.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129216-the-fall-of-newspapers-aim-the-gun-the-right-way?source=feed#comment-451024 451024
I do agree that the Internet has hastened demise. But it's far more than what people see. It's the fact that newspapers OWN very little of their content anymore. They act as though they create everything in their newsrooms when, if you were to go through every item in a newspaper, you'd see columns and commentary from sources that aren't local and can be found in multiple places online. They'd see comics that I can find online every day (and that are emailed to me in color and the order I want to see them). They'd find national stories that are commodity and usually have come and gone from desktops before they're published in print (does the reader really care whether it's AP or Reuters?). Even the editorial cartoons aren't theirs exclusively most of the time. I can get crossword puzzles and Soduku from all sorts of places. Even their marketplace is duplicated (I can see the Best Buy insert any time online). My 80-year-old parents know how to find an obit online by going to multiple sources. Newspapers act as though the only news that's commoditized is their small percentage of the overall material in the newspapers. The whole freikin' paper is one big aggregation of content that is made available at the click of a mouse. They could unplug their servers and someone could step in and aggregate much of the same content to produce much of their print edition with cool links-which is exactly what the aggregators like Y! do!!

The real trouble here is that the newspapers have been like the cable operators for so long. They really just packaged up their little bit of content and put it with all sorts of "channels" of material, none of which they produced themselves-- and sold it in a monopolistic position. All it took was for that content to be made available through other means and they were exposed. So what the Internet did was make the content they squatted available in multiple places instantly. That is a totally different problem than the newspapers having websites. The truth is, you can't get many of the things that are listed above on a newspaper's website, because THEY DON'T OWN IT. But it's available online by the content owners, and that kills the newspaper's local market exclusivity. Live by syndication, die by syndication.

If a newspaper ever published only that which came out of its newsroom, that would be a pretty thin paper. Yet, they have/had hundreds and hundreds of journalists, many of them columnists who were producing perhaps 2 columns a week (taking them all of 6 hours generously to put together) and calling it a work week. It seems that nobody gets in a hurry in a newsroom anymore. Content is king, but only for the real creator of the content.

The real conversation that could save the newspapers is exclusivity. They need to start a true analysis of the content that is exclusively theirs. If they are to survive, they can't rely on someone else's content when it's so widely distributed at the speed of light. The only content they truly control is that which they, themselves produce. And they should produce more of it.

[A lesson for the broadcaster here. Talk about relying on everyone else's content...]

So, in that vein, I blame the journalists. I blame the editors. They had it too easy for too long and took their readers for granted, relying on so many others to produce content for them.

But.... I blame the readers too. NPs need to decide if they have the stomach to write what people want to read--shallow stories about celebs in rehab and other crap. So I blame reader apathy too.

One has to wonder how, in a world of technological advancement such as word processors, computer-assisted reporting, etc, newspapers could go through the 80s with large expansion of editorial departments and still produce the same or less local content. Technology should have required fewer bodies to do more work, not the other way around. Or there should have been a disproportional increase in the volume and percentage of local content.

Sorry, but when they write the epitaph, it will talk about how a new model emerged from the ashes of the newspapers that will be very different. It is doubtful that anyone has the capacity to change the stripes on the zebra, so I doubt the newspaper companies will be around to see it emerge.

]]> Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:19:28 -0400
I do agree that the Internet has hastened demise. But it's far more than what people see. It's the fact that newspapers OWN very little of their content anymore. They act as though they create everything in their newsrooms when, if you were to go through every item in a newspaper, you'd see columns and commentary from sources that aren't local and can be found in multiple places online. They'd see comics that I can find online every day (and that are emailed to me in color and the order I want to see them). They'd find national stories that are commodity and usually have come and gone from desktops before they're published in print (does the reader really care whether it's AP or Reuters?). Even the editorial cartoons aren't theirs exclusively most of the time. I can get crossword puzzles and Soduku from all sorts of places. Even their marketplace is duplicated (I can see the Best Buy insert any time online). My 80-year-old parents know how to find an obit online by going to multiple sources. Newspapers act as though the only news that's commoditized is their small percentage of the overall material in the newspapers. The whole freikin' paper is one big aggregation of content that is made available at the click of a mouse. They could unplug their servers and someone could step in and aggregate much of the same content to produce much of their print edition with cool links-which is exactly what the aggregators like Y! do!!

The real trouble here is that the newspapers have been like the cable operators for so long. They really just packaged up their little bit of content and put it with all sorts of "channels" of material, none of which they produced themselves-- and sold it in a monopolistic position. All it took was for that content to be made available through other means and they were exposed. So what the Internet did was make the content they squatted available in multiple places instantly. That is a totally different problem than the newspapers having websites. The truth is, you can't get many of the things that are listed above on a newspaper's website, because THEY DON'T OWN IT. But it's available online by the content owners, and that kills the newspaper's local market exclusivity. Live by syndication, die by syndication.

If a newspaper ever published only that which came out of its newsroom, that would be a pretty thin paper. Yet, they have/had hundreds and hundreds of journalists, many of them columnists who were producing perhaps 2 columns a week (taking them all of 6 hours generously to put together) and calling it a work week. It seems that nobody gets in a hurry in a newsroom anymore. Content is king, but only for the real creator of the content.

The real conversation that could save the newspapers is exclusivity. They need to start a true analysis of the content that is exclusively theirs. If they are to survive, they can't rely on someone else's content when it's so widely distributed at the speed of light. The only content they truly control is that which they, themselves produce. And they should produce more of it.

[A lesson for the broadcaster here. Talk about relying on everyone else's content...]

So, in that vein, I blame the journalists. I blame the editors. They had it too easy for too long and took their readers for granted, relying on so many others to produce content for them.

But.... I blame the readers too. NPs need to decide if they have the stomach to write what people want to read--shallow stories about celebs in rehab and other crap. So I blame reader apathy too.

One has to wonder how, in a world of technological advancement such as word processors, computer-assisted reporting, etc, newspapers could go through the 80s with large expansion of editorial departments and still produce the same or less local content. Technology should have required fewer bodies to do more work, not the other way around. Or there should have been a disproportional increase in the volume and percentage of local content.

Sorry, but when they write the epitaph, it will talk about how a new model emerged from the ashes of the newspapers that will be very different. It is doubtful that anyone has the capacity to change the stripes on the zebra, so I doubt the newspaper companies will be around to see it emerge.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127856-rescue-vs-reinvention-for-newspapers-or-banks-bailouts-reinforce-status-quo?source=feed#comment-440211 440211 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:58:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125726-too-many-people-don-t-care-if-newspapers-die?source=feed#comment-423740 423740
How the news business will be resurrected will make for an interesting case study. There will be winners and losers. I don't believe that the insert business will all go direct mail, either.

]]> Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:21:24 -0400
How the news business will be resurrected will make for an interesting case study. There will be winners and losers. I don't believe that the insert business will all go direct mail, either.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125029-this-week-in-saving-newspapers?source=feed#comment-420438 420438
Like watching the Senate go away, or something. Removing an all-important leg of the stool. They are too important to democracy. Don't count on radio, tv, or Inet to do what the papers do. I just wish they would take their responsibility more seriously and report with less bias and a mission of fairness over their own political ambitions. Of course, it's been that way since the 1800s, so it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

I don't mind the collusion thing, but nobody seems to be talking about the arcane cross-ownership rules. Let the NPs work with and own TV stations. Both are in real peril. Allowing cross-ownership could be a real shot in the arm. The FCC, through the cross-ownership rules, imposes barriers that are not only unnecessary, but they also are incremental acid eating into the 1st amendment.

Many forget that most television stations were begun by newspapers in the first place.

Several newspaper companies have sought to have the cross-ownership rules overturned, yet, those in power have no incentive to have the watchdogs get stronger. They use the unique, independent voice argument as though media is limited in the same way it was in the 1950s. They're really just fine with being able to control the press.

That's the story that's not being told in this whole argument. We should certainly start there. By having one news department for television stations and newspapers, the cost would be contained and the reporting might be better--but the goal at this point should probably be existence.

And exNewspaper is obviously bitter, lacking understanding that most of the news that is read over radio, put into television newscasts, and blogged, all comes on the backs of an editorial dept somewhere. Without newspaper editorial departments, democracy is toast... and the bloggers would have to become investigative reporters. I love the blogs, but let's face it; they would have to put on clothes and get out and do the work of the newspapers in order to have any sort of future in a post-newspaper world. They would face the same economic challenges in a world of entitlement, where everything on the Internet is free. Who would pay their travel expenses? How would they be compensated?

I so want to see newspapers survive, but they have so many fundamental flaws that are deeply rooted that anything short of radical metamorphosis will be woefully short of the necessary transformation required to survive.]]> Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:00:44 -0400
Like watching the Senate go away, or something. Removing an all-important leg of the stool. They are too important to democracy. Don't count on radio, tv, or Inet to do what the papers do. I just wish they would take their responsibility more seriously and report with less bias and a mission of fairness over their own political ambitions. Of course, it's been that way since the 1800s, so it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

I don't mind the collusion thing, but nobody seems to be talking about the arcane cross-ownership rules. Let the NPs work with and own TV stations. Both are in real peril. Allowing cross-ownership could be a real shot in the arm. The FCC, through the cross-ownership rules, imposes barriers that are not only unnecessary, but they also are incremental acid eating into the 1st amendment.

Many forget that most television stations were begun by newspapers in the first place.

Several newspaper companies have sought to have the cross-ownership rules overturned, yet, those in power have no incentive to have the watchdogs get stronger. They use the unique, independent voice argument as though media is limited in the same way it was in the 1950s. They're really just fine with being able to control the press.

That's the story that's not being told in this whole argument. We should certainly start there. By having one news department for television stations and newspapers, the cost would be contained and the reporting might be better--but the goal at this point should probably be existence.

And exNewspaper is obviously bitter, lacking understanding that most of the news that is read over radio, put into television newscasts, and blogged, all comes on the backs of an editorial dept somewhere. Without newspaper editorial departments, democracy is toast... and the bloggers would have to become investigative reporters. I love the blogs, but let's face it; they would have to put on clothes and get out and do the work of the newspapers in order to have any sort of future in a post-newspaper world. They would face the same economic challenges in a world of entitlement, where everything on the Internet is free. Who would pay their travel expenses? How would they be compensated?

I so want to see newspapers survive, but they have so many fundamental flaws that are deeply rooted that anything short of radical metamorphosis will be woefully short of the necessary transformation required to survive.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124262-out-of-america-farewell-to-private-industry-and-property?source=feed#comment-414188 414188
For me, I just wonder what the employment sector would look like, applying the same logic. In other words, just how many people in the US economy will be employed by some facet of the government?]]> Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:37:56 -0500
For me, I just wonder what the employment sector would look like, applying the same logic. In other words, just how many people in the US economy will be employed by some facet of the government?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123305-newsday-et-al-too-little-too-late?source=feed#comment-407415 407415
Here's my short list recommendations:

1. Kill the AP. It's outlived its usefulness and commoditizes the content of the member papers. While the AP does deals that make money for the AP with the likes of Google, the member newspapers don't understand why their papers aren't able to maximize their editorial content. Wake up, for heavens sake! The AP is, and has been a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.

2. Get rid of debt. Close papers, sell assets. Circle the wagons. Do whatever it takes. Those who continue to borrow money deserve whatever they get. Many of us saw this coming and pointed out the absolute stupidity. But then, they were in denial. Get whatever the market value is. It's not as though they're not taking write-downs on the impaired assets anyway.

3. Take the companies private. I know Tribune wanted to; they were on the right track; I hate that it's turned out the way it has. The only way NPs can reclaim market share is to operate on paper thin margins for which shareholders will have no stomach. The road to reclaim market share will mean cutting rates to rebuild circulation; then the advertising MIGHT have value to the limited number of advertisers who appreciate a mass audience in a world of behaviorally targeted media. Once private, establish ESOPs to retain talent--but keep it in the family. Props to the Newhouses of the world who cared enough to ignore the intoxication of public funding. Their products reflect the commitment as a result.

4. I don't know how much adversity will be necessary to force NPs to work together, but we'll likely find out in 2009. Screw Google and Yahoo! and create a news search engine owned by the NPs. Sell contextual ads for searches. Do it right. Create a whole new entity with its own profit goals. If only 20% of any NP's web traffic comes from search engines, it's really not that big of a sacrifice and will likely pay huge dividends. Over time, many of the searches will return anyway through a news search engine. Gannett has topix that would be the perfect vehicle. What in the world are they waiting for? Google has to be laughing at the money they've made on the backs of all the editorial depts in the country.

5. Take their responsibility seriously. There's a real credibility issue when 60% of readers do not trust the news they read in the local paper to be the truth and absent of bias. It grieves me that we may be witnessing the death of the 4th estate in this country--all due to a combination of laziness that has caused editorial departments to cease to be the watchdog for the common man, satisfied in regurgitating talking points that are fed to them--and blatant sychophantism, becoming fawning lapdogs who are more interested in getting praise from those they are charged in holding accountable than having an insatiable desire for truth. We have all entrusted them to safeguard democracy. They are failing miserably.

Even that, though, may just prolong the inevitable. I've heard it argued that one medium, when introduced, doesn't replace the previous medium. For example, radio didn't kill newspapers, and TV didn't replace radio. That's really limited thinking and is quite naive. Such a position fails to recognize a cumulative effect. Radio didn't kill newspapers--but perhaps radio, TV, cable, and the Internet WILL kill newspapers. Each new entrant erodes all previous media to some extent. The real question is, "how much new media does it take to bury an incumbent?" History shows it takes more than one, but in my thinking, "four" may be answer.

]]> Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:26:20 -0500
Here's my short list recommendations:

1. Kill the AP. It's outlived its usefulness and commoditizes the content of the member papers. While the AP does deals that make money for the AP with the likes of Google, the member newspapers don't understand why their papers aren't able to maximize their editorial content. Wake up, for heavens sake! The AP is, and has been a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.

2. Get rid of debt. Close papers, sell assets. Circle the wagons. Do whatever it takes. Those who continue to borrow money deserve whatever they get. Many of us saw this coming and pointed out the absolute stupidity. But then, they were in denial. Get whatever the market value is. It's not as though they're not taking write-downs on the impaired assets anyway.

3. Take the companies private. I know Tribune wanted to; they were on the right track; I hate that it's turned out the way it has. The only way NPs can reclaim market share is to operate on paper thin margins for which shareholders will have no stomach. The road to reclaim market share will mean cutting rates to rebuild circulation; then the advertising MIGHT have value to the limited number of advertisers who appreciate a mass audience in a world of behaviorally targeted media. Once private, establish ESOPs to retain talent--but keep it in the family. Props to the Newhouses of the world who cared enough to ignore the intoxication of public funding. Their products reflect the commitment as a result.

4. I don't know how much adversity will be necessary to force NPs to work together, but we'll likely find out in 2009. Screw Google and Yahoo! and create a news search engine owned by the NPs. Sell contextual ads for searches. Do it right. Create a whole new entity with its own profit goals. If only 20% of any NP's web traffic comes from search engines, it's really not that big of a sacrifice and will likely pay huge dividends. Over time, many of the searches will return anyway through a news search engine. Gannett has topix that would be the perfect vehicle. What in the world are they waiting for? Google has to be laughing at the money they've made on the backs of all the editorial depts in the country.

5. Take their responsibility seriously. There's a real credibility issue when 60% of readers do not trust the news they read in the local paper to be the truth and absent of bias. It grieves me that we may be witnessing the death of the 4th estate in this country--all due to a combination of laziness that has caused editorial departments to cease to be the watchdog for the common man, satisfied in regurgitating talking points that are fed to them--and blatant sychophantism, becoming fawning lapdogs who are more interested in getting praise from those they are charged in holding accountable than having an insatiable desire for truth. We have all entrusted them to safeguard democracy. They are failing miserably.

Even that, though, may just prolong the inevitable. I've heard it argued that one medium, when introduced, doesn't replace the previous medium. For example, radio didn't kill newspapers, and TV didn't replace radio. That's really limited thinking and is quite naive. Such a position fails to recognize a cumulative effect. Radio didn't kill newspapers--but perhaps radio, TV, cable, and the Internet WILL kill newspapers. Each new entrant erodes all previous media to some extent. The real question is, "how much new media does it take to bury an incumbent?" History shows it takes more than one, but in my thinking, "four" may be answer.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120720-does-obama-have-a-secret-plan?source=feed#comment-390504 390504 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:39:43 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/117638-new-iphone-app-could-boost-sirius-xm-s-cash?source=feed#comment-373786 373786
1. When (not really a question of "if") Congress brings back the Fairness Doctrine (how Ayn Rand), the conservative talk show holdouts will flock to the satellite nets along with their audiences. The Rush audience is 20 million strong and loyal. While some are already there, their audiences have options today of talk radio or satellite. If talk goes away from analog radio, the satellite option will be the primary conduit for distribution.

2. The big tech play is when SIRI shakes hands with the GPS guys and brings in an advertising stream that is based upon location. OnStar has the capability now, to a degree. A whole new targeted revenue stream that allows ads based upon your proximity to an advertiser: "Hungry? There's a Cracker Barrel just a few short miles ahead." Based on time/location: "If you're tired of driving, getting sleepy and are looking for a great room at a great price, you're only minutes from the Marriott Courtyard."

The iPhone step gets them ever closer--especially when you stop to consider the GPS in every iPhone. All quite achievable, really. It's going to happen. Too much upside for Garmin/et al, and way too much ad revenue for SIRI. Think big, peeps! You saw it here first. 12-18 months is my guess.

]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:42:10 -0500
1. When (not really a question of "if") Congress brings back the Fairness Doctrine (how Ayn Rand), the conservative talk show holdouts will flock to the satellite nets along with their audiences. The Rush audience is 20 million strong and loyal. While some are already there, their audiences have options today of talk radio or satellite. If talk goes away from analog radio, the satellite option will be the primary conduit for distribution.

2. The big tech play is when SIRI shakes hands with the GPS guys and brings in an advertising stream that is based upon location. OnStar has the capability now, to a degree. A whole new targeted revenue stream that allows ads based upon your proximity to an advertiser: "Hungry? There's a Cracker Barrel just a few short miles ahead." Based on time/location: "If you're tired of driving, getting sleepy and are looking for a great room at a great price, you're only minutes from the Marriott Courtyard."

The iPhone step gets them ever closer--especially when you stop to consider the GPS in every iPhone. All quite achievable, really. It's going to happen. Too much upside for Garmin/et al, and way too much ad revenue for SIRI. Think big, peeps! You saw it here first. 12-18 months is my guess.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117696-wsj-downgraded-what-s-next-for-newspapers?source=feed#comment-373756 373756 Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:12:20 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/117878-the-obama-stimulus-plan-why-i-m-concerned?source=feed#comment-373206 373206
Political agendas, keeping consumers hooked on credit, and wanting to ensure a successful democratic mid-term by buying votes is at the heart of all of this.

There goes the neighborhood....]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:48:33 -0500
Political agendas, keeping consumers hooked on credit, and wanting to ensure a successful democratic mid-term by buying votes is at the heart of all of this.

There goes the neighborhood....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113671-newspapers-and-the-internet-opportunities-lost?source=feed#comment-348726 348726
The 2008 presidential election is a case in point.


On Jan 07 12:10 PM common sense 2 wrote:

> I know that everyone think that papers are dead because of the web.
> What they fail to take into account is that the news on the web could
> come from the back room at some 14 year old house, who thinks that
> he is god's gift as a tell all editor. In a lot of websites there
> are no checks and balances about the turth. Just because it's on
> print on the web does not mean it's true. Look how many "Urban Myth's"
> are sent out in emails and online at the whole truth. Since these
> webpages can be started for less than $100 everyone is a publisher
> if they wish to be.
> I am sure thaere are a lot of hate groups spewing there from of truth
> and half truths to an audiance that will believe anything.
>
> You can find all the rumours you wish on the web, but can you really
> trust the information????? I am sure that there is a lot of dis-imformation
> being presented also.
>
> In the rush to be first to publish information, the internet publishes
> more trash, read by more readers than any newspaper ever has.

>
>
> Just what are we letting the youth see on the internet... how to
> make a bomb, hate groups to brain wash them? Remember that for the
> most part it's a wide open frontier, and because of that quite lawless
> on what is given as fact.
>
> I wonder if during the 1800's that they considered the cities as
> bygone era because of the wide open land available, instead of the
> trash and waste running down the city streets.
>
> Not everyone trust the internet for good reasons, but through 100
> years of publishing most people feel they can trust papers, even
> if they don't always agree with them. They know who to complain to
> and hold accountable for there stories.
>
> That internet site could be just a group of college students from
> around the globe, each haing there own section to worry about. If
> you complained would they even read it? or would it just go in the
> wastecan of email or an automatic trash disposal.
>
> I would perfer my information to come from a reliable site, not just
> a teen editor.
>
> And one other point. If you have all the answers, why not start your
> own internet /or paper product rather than complaining about the
> ones that try. I don't mean just wrinting a column, slanted toward
> what will sell at this time. I am sure if you wrote the praise of
> newspapers no internet site would pay you for it.
>
> my 2 cents worth.]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:24:44 -0500
The 2008 presidential election is a case in point.


On Jan 07 12:10 PM common sense 2 wrote:

> I know that everyone think that papers are dead because of the web.
> What they fail to take into account is that the news on the web could
> come from the back room at some 14 year old house, who thinks that
> he is god's gift as a tell all editor. In a lot of websites there
> are no checks and balances about the turth. Just because it's on
> print on the web does not mean it's true. Look how many "Urban Myth's"
> are sent out in emails and online at the whole truth. Since these
> webpages can be started for less than $100 everyone is a publisher
> if they wish to be.
> I am sure thaere are a lot of hate groups spewing there from of truth
> and half truths to an audiance that will believe anything.
>
> You can find all the rumours you wish on the web, but can you really
> trust the information????? I am sure that there is a lot of dis-imformation
> being presented also.
>
> In the rush to be first to publish information, the internet publishes
> more trash, read by more readers than any newspaper ever has.

>
>
> Just what are we letting the youth see on the internet... how to
> make a bomb, hate groups to brain wash them? Remember that for the
> most part it's a wide open frontier, and because of that quite lawless
> on what is given as fact.
>
> I wonder if during the 1800's that they considered the cities as
> bygone era because of the wide open land available, instead of the
> trash and waste running down the city streets.
>
> Not everyone trust the internet for good reasons, but through 100
> years of publishing most people feel they can trust papers, even
> if they don't always agree with them. They know who to complain to
> and hold accountable for there stories.
>
> That internet site could be just a group of college students from
> around the globe, each haing there own section to worry about. If
> you complained would they even read it? or would it just go in the
> wastecan of email or an automatic trash disposal.
>
> I would perfer my information to come from a reliable site, not just
> a teen editor.
>
> And one other point. If you have all the answers, why not start your
> own internet /or paper product rather than complaining about the
> ones that try. I don't mean just wrinting a column, slanted toward
> what will sell at this time. I am sure if you wrote the praise of
> newspapers no internet site would pay you for it.
>
> my 2 cents worth.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113671-newspapers-and-the-internet-opportunities-lost?source=feed#comment-348540 348540
Web opportunities still exist, but most editors are too mired in self pity to get off their journalistic rear ends to do something new and exciting. It's still not too late for newspapers, but it is high time to get the boring journalsaurs out of the picture and produce interesting content. Let's face it: even the "edgy" products that were supposed to be innovative are quite boring as compared with the truly edgy stuff that is more engaging.

But the problems aren't just with the content. That's a start. Bring me more options with delivery. History will tell us that the beginning of the end for newspapers was the death of the afternoon paper. NBC figured out that people don't stay up until 11:30 PM anymore to watch Leno. Can't NPs figure out the same thing? Logistical hurdles aside, if survival depends on it, they'll have to find a way. Imagine the immediate boost an afternoon paper would have on readership if it were fresh news from a fresh perspective, written for today's audience! They might find that 50% of potential readers don't have time for the morning paper but would appreciate an evening digest.

]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:39:42 -0500
Web opportunities still exist, but most editors are too mired in self pity to get off their journalistic rear ends to do something new and exciting. It's still not too late for newspapers, but it is high time to get the boring journalsaurs out of the picture and produce interesting content. Let's face it: even the "edgy" products that were supposed to be innovative are quite boring as compared with the truly edgy stuff that is more engaging.

But the problems aren't just with the content. That's a start. Bring me more options with delivery. History will tell us that the beginning of the end for newspapers was the death of the afternoon paper. NBC figured out that people don't stay up until 11:30 PM anymore to watch Leno. Can't NPs figure out the same thing? Logistical hurdles aside, if survival depends on it, they'll have to find a way. Imagine the immediate boost an afternoon paper would have on readership if it were fresh news from a fresh perspective, written for today's audience! They might find that 50% of potential readers don't have time for the morning paper but would appreciate an evening digest.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113117-telling-statistics-on-the-news-business?source=feed#comment-346364 346364
* An editorial dept will never be sustained by online ad revenue in neither the current online ad model, or the current editorial newsroom model-at least for most NPs that would be considered local and not national. For that model to work, CPMs would have to be multiplied by a factor of 10.
* The answer is/has always been there, but ego and arrogance have always kept the NP industry from solving their problem. They've never been able to get out of their own way.
* The traditional NP can't be fighting with the online group, whether the online is treated as internal or as an external entity.
* The NP industry has allowed the AP to sell its birth rite to the search engines where the money is being made. What a great deal! NPs pay to create the content, GIVE it to the AP (or pay the AP for the privilege for accepting their content), who, in turn, takes money from the search engines to undercut both the print and online editions of the papers.

The ONLY answer I see (trust me--14 years of experience here) is for the NP industry to create their own news search engine, market it heavily in a collaborative effort, etc. Their NP search engine should allow for search results to be organized by release date. Imagine the ad revenue that would shift from the search engines to the NPs!! Whatever they do---keep the AP out of the equation; they are part of the problem, not the solution.]]> Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:58:56 -0500
* An editorial dept will never be sustained by online ad revenue in neither the current online ad model, or the current editorial newsroom model-at least for most NPs that would be considered local and not national. For that model to work, CPMs would have to be multiplied by a factor of 10.
* The answer is/has always been there, but ego and arrogance have always kept the NP industry from solving their problem. They've never been able to get out of their own way.
* The traditional NP can't be fighting with the online group, whether the online is treated as internal or as an external entity.
* The NP industry has allowed the AP to sell its birth rite to the search engines where the money is being made. What a great deal! NPs pay to create the content, GIVE it to the AP (or pay the AP for the privilege for accepting their content), who, in turn, takes money from the search engines to undercut both the print and online editions of the papers.

The ONLY answer I see (trust me--14 years of experience here) is for the NP industry to create their own news search engine, market it heavily in a collaborative effort, etc. Their NP search engine should allow for search results to be organized by release date. Imagine the ad revenue that would shift from the search engines to the NPs!! Whatever they do---keep the AP out of the equation; they are part of the problem, not the solution.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111892-newspapers-defensive-depressed-and-desperate?source=feed#comment-336149 336149
Where I disagree is that all the newspapers could, in concert, turn off the outside world without a subscription. That ignores the fact that most people can already get most of the content of a newspaper without that subscription. The AP already sold out to Y! and Google. Comics.com has the comics. And as for local content, the local TV stations would have quite a boost in traffic to their sites. I'm sure they'd love to compete against a paid model for eyeballs. NPs have no monopoly on local news and information in any local market and for any doggone syndicated piece of content they run in the interactive realm. Sorry to be the one to break the news....

I have always found it amusing that NPs thought that they could, in their monopolistic view from their monolithic lens, cut off their websites from the world and there would be no competitors in the digital realm--just as there is not in the printed realm. How misguided and naive...

I'm afraid their problems are content, content, and content. They're not making papers people want to read--just as Detroit isn't making cars people want to buy.

So much could be learned by studying the HBO history, when VCRs, release windows, and proliferating cable nets all eroded the content value for their service. They figured somewhere that they weren't in the MOVIE business, but were in the ENTERTAINMENT business. Along came The Sopranos, Sex and The City, and lots of other original, can't-get-it-anywhere-... content. NPs are in a similar position: the product is largely commodity; competition against earlier release windows. They need to step back and see what about their product is unique, entertaining, and has wide appeal.

Or maybe they could go niche and print everything on a ditty press for those who still care about everything within a 5 block area of city hall. You're right, Jeff, they are self-inflicted wounds. The only remedy is total reinvention; even the content they port over to the net isn't strong enough to support a sustainable franchise where the websites provide payment for the news stories online. But I don't think they KNOW what people aren't reading. They only do readership studies. Perhaps they would be well served to do NON-readership studies to find out what people WOULD read.]]> Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:26:11 -0500
Where I disagree is that all the newspapers could, in concert, turn off the outside world without a subscription. That ignores the fact that most people can already get most of the content of a newspaper without that subscription. The AP already sold out to Y! and Google. Comics.com has the comics. And as for local content, the local TV stations would have quite a boost in traffic to their sites. I'm sure they'd love to compete against a paid model for eyeballs. NPs have no monopoly on local news and information in any local market and for any doggone syndicated piece of content they run in the interactive realm. Sorry to be the one to break the news....

I have always found it amusing that NPs thought that they could, in their monopolistic view from their monolithic lens, cut off their websites from the world and there would be no competitors in the digital realm--just as there is not in the printed realm. How misguided and naive...

I'm afraid their problems are content, content, and content. They're not making papers people want to read--just as Detroit isn't making cars people want to buy.

So much could be learned by studying the HBO history, when VCRs, release windows, and proliferating cable nets all eroded the content value for their service. They figured somewhere that they weren't in the MOVIE business, but were in the ENTERTAINMENT business. Along came The Sopranos, Sex and The City, and lots of other original, can't-get-it-anywhere-... content. NPs are in a similar position: the product is largely commodity; competition against earlier release windows. They need to step back and see what about their product is unique, entertaining, and has wide appeal.

Or maybe they could go niche and print everything on a ditty press for those who still care about everything within a 5 block area of city hall. You're right, Jeff, they are self-inflicted wounds. The only remedy is total reinvention; even the content they port over to the net isn't strong enough to support a sustainable franchise where the websites provide payment for the news stories online. But I don't think they KNOW what people aren't reading. They only do readership studies. Perhaps they would be well served to do NON-readership studies to find out what people WOULD read.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110899-newspapers-reinvent-yourselves-or-else?source=feed#comment-331274 331274
I'll admit that newspapers haven't been bold enough to go where they need to. Mark apparently is writing from a perspective devoid of history. He doesn't know about the many things that have been done and the way that newspapers have tried to reinvent themselves online--many times being successful. Ever heard of Cars.com, Mark?

Where I think David is going is the right question in need of a solution. I still believe the day when the newspapers can all get together, close the door on Google and start their own news search engine will be the day they can start getting the money that Google gets (or at least their fair portion). Frankly Google makes money at nps' expense. What a great gig--the newsrooms across america produce content for which Google pays very little, if anything, and makes gobs of money off it selling ad words. While the move may be bold, it's where the NPs need to be. I'm not suggesting the NPs have one more "hail Mary," but this is no time to be shy. Between Cox and Gannett, there are at least 2 pieces of technology already in place to make it happen. NPs still have the umph to make the marketing happen and establish brand recognition.

[The AP is NOT the organization to do this. Their agenda should make anyone dubious. They are proving to be fairly colonial in their pursuits under TC. I wonder which will occur first--will the AP outlive its usefulness or wear out its welcome?]

I do know that Gordon B. is right: you'll never be able to pour money in the top faster than it's going out the bottom without an initiative the likes of a news search engine.

The NP industry tried to do all this in the mid-nineties, as many-a-colleague will remember, yet the egos of the individual companies made it all collapse. Perhaps such times as these will make for an environment where such initiatives could be revisited. I doubt Mark is even old enough to remember the New Century Network. I've said many times that NCN was ahead of its time.

]]> Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:39:57 -0500
I'll admit that newspapers haven't been bold enough to go where they need to. Mark apparently is writing from a perspective devoid of history. He doesn't know about the many things that have been done and the way that newspapers have tried to reinvent themselves online--many times being successful. Ever heard of Cars.com, Mark?

Where I think David is going is the right question in need of a solution. I still believe the day when the newspapers can all get together, close the door on Google and start their own news search engine will be the day they can start getting the money that Google gets (or at least their fair portion). Frankly Google makes money at nps' expense. What a great gig--the newsrooms across america produce content for which Google pays very little, if anything, and makes gobs of money off it selling ad words. While the move may be bold, it's where the NPs need to be. I'm not suggesting the NPs have one more "hail Mary," but this is no time to be shy. Between Cox and Gannett, there are at least 2 pieces of technology already in place to make it happen. NPs still have the umph to make the marketing happen and establish brand recognition.

[The AP is NOT the organization to do this. Their agenda should make anyone dubious. They are proving to be fairly colonial in their pursuits under TC. I wonder which will occur first--will the AP outlive its usefulness or wear out its welcome?]

I do know that Gordon B. is right: you'll never be able to pour money in the top faster than it's going out the bottom without an initiative the likes of a news search engine.

The NP industry tried to do all this in the mid-nineties, as many-a-colleague will remember, yet the egos of the individual companies made it all collapse. Perhaps such times as these will make for an environment where such initiatives could be revisited. I doubt Mark is even old enough to remember the New Century Network. I've said many times that NCN was ahead of its time.

]]>