NP Refugee

Why GM's Not the Only Company Rush Limbaugh Should Boycott

No wonder so few trust the media. Rick, you've damaged your credibility on this one. Try doing research to determine exactly what was said before you put words in someone else's mouth. Or are you more conspiratorial than I give you credit for?

Either way, you're a disservice to the trade and reinforce the notion that journalists can't be trusted.

Does Obama Have a Secret Plan?

I think he has a plan alright; it's anything that will advance a Marxist agenda. If he can nationalize and centralize anything, he will. The secret part of his plan will involve making the constitution a guideline rather than a rule. I just wonder how long the states will tolerate having more and more power stripped away from them. This sounds a lot like Abraham Lincoln, his beloved hero. I just wonder what he will use as his excuse, since slavery won't be there to justify a war that is really about taking power away from states and capturing it at the federal level, "preserving the Union". Illegal aliens? I firmly believe his intent is on running everything from DC for as many years as he can stay in office (look out; term limits will be next on his hit list--thus the Acorn funding).

Out of America: Farewell to Private Industry and Property

Russ, I'm sure you must be a REAL economist, qualified, and educated from a top-notch university. Otherwise, you wouldn't be qualified to deem whether the analysis is good or not. You obviously need to be writing and publishing information so as to enlighten the rest of us who just aren't as comfortable with the whole notion of socialism.

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?

Newsday et al: Too Little, Too Late

Jeff, as usual, your insights are dead-on. The time to change was back when NPs were all in a state of denial and arrogance. So many problems--I don't know whether they can get out of their own way.

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.

Getting Past Newspapers' Past

Convincing a large media company to allow comments by readers at the foot of stories in 2002 was a difficult thing for editors to grasp. Granted, it was uncharted territory. They clearly didn't want comments from readers. After all, someone in the newsroom might have to monitor them, and by their accounts, they just didn't have people with time to perform that function. They fought me, fought the concept and just didn't want to make readers part of a "conversation." It really spoke to just how hard they were trying to hold onto to the past and keep the genii in the bottle.

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.

Perspective on John Malone's Sirius Stance

I worked for John Malone at one time in my career, so I can speak with absolute authority when I tell you that he is not only smart, he is very keen when it comes to perception about the potential of businesses. He is looking beyond the surface and has probably sized up the business wisely. I haven't spoken to him in over 10 years, but his way of thinking would be this:

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.

On the Constitutionality of a Newspaper Bailout

Sorry, dude. Things get twisted all the time. How we went from allowing freedom to worship in the 1st amendment as a constitutional ban on any reference to religion is exactly why the slippery slope rule applies. After all, they "dumped a bunch" of money into GM, and the next thing you know, the president is firing the CEO. So the editorial board of newspapers will all of sudden be full of ACORN.

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.

Newspapers Can't Compete with 'Us'

Think about this: the newspaper's content, most of which they don't own nor create is available in lots of places. The newspaper is under siege from all sorts of directions. I can get comics from 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.

Too Many People Don't Care If Newspapers Die

Within the news ecosystem, there are many parasites who exist off of newspapers and their editorial departments. People just don't realize the vacuum that will be created. At the same time, newspapers may have to die in order for news to become resurrected in other forms (not unlike the big auto guys). News has become commoditized in many markets, but the source is usually the newspaper. There's not a local radio station who doesn't start their day by opening the newspaper to write their scripts. Same for broadcast TV.

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.

What's the Boston Globe Worth? About a Buck

I continually wonder just how much the liberal bias does, in fact hurt the newspaper industry. It has to be taking a toll. Perhaps the growth and Fox News and the decline of CNN may be indicative of the effects of liberal bias in media. One really must ask just stupid an entire industry can be to alienate what is 50% of the populace--a percentage of the populace that is more likely to read deeply and delve past the headline in Yahoo! or Google news.

The Obama Stimulus Plan: Why I'm Concerned

What is so frightening is that Congress knows full well the solution. A one-year window that exempts capital gains would create a flurry of personal investment that would dwarf any effect of a $1 billion plus porkulus plan. It's a quick way out, but unfortunately, it fails to support the agenda of "remaking America" into a socialist state.

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....

Newspapers: Defensive, Depressed and Desperate?

I agree with most of what you're saying... arrogance... monopoly... blah, blah, blah. I do believe that NPs are essential to democracy. Are we going to trust the bloggers to hold politicos accountable? They get most of what they write from guess where? NPs.

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.

Newspapers: Reinvent Yourselves... Or Else

What a buffoon!

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.

High Operating Leverage Pressuring Newspaper Companies

The impediment facing the newspaper industry is not with it's operating cash flow, but rather, with the debt load. Servicing the debt as part of the cost structure is crippling the newspaper industry's ability to create new forms of content, and thus, create value. Until newspaper companies can shed debt, they are going to struggle--plain and simple.

Online Advertising: Stop Selling Scarcity

I usually agree, Jeff, but not this time.

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.