hankscott

Jarvis vs. Mutter: What Newspapers Are Worth

It's what used to be called a newspaper or magazine. They had editors who picked and chose among the various issues and events of the day to select those most important and worthy of coverage. That way you didn't have to wade through all of the blather and noise that one is assaulted by from various interest groups, corner preachers, and PR firms.

I need the same product you describe. I'm tired of reading opinions about the media from kids who don't know anything about the business (see the blog post elsewhere on Seeking Alpha that analyzes the New York Times' annual cost in comparison to the median income of New Yorkers -- an irrelevant concern to The Times.)


On Mar 24 10:23 AM hankscott wrote:

> What I would pay for, in print or online (preferably delivered to
> my Kindle), is a daily briefing from an authoritative source of what's
> going on in the world of digital media. I find I'm too busy to read
> Seeking Alpha, Tech Crunch, Silicon Alley Reporter, the musings of
> Newsosaur, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Any ideas?
>

The New York Times' Geffen Put

The relationship between a subscription to The Times and the median income of a New Yorker is irrelevant. It should be evident that the strategy of The Times, for at least twenty years now, has to become a national, demographically focused product. That provides the newspaper with substantial protection from the geographically focused strategy that other newspapers (except for the WSJ and USA Today) must pursue. The focus is on building an affluent, educated audience. The Times has done that.

Unfortunately, in this recession, even national publications such as The Times (and Vanity Fair, and the WSJ) are hurting. The Times is lucky in that it no longer depends on classified advertising for much of its revenue (that's the portion that has been lost to the web, and on which many local newspapers still count).

Jarvis vs. Mutter: What Newspapers Are Worth

What I would pay for, in print or online (preferably delivered to my Kindle), is a daily briefing from an authoritative source of what's going on in the world of digital media. I find I'm too busy to read Seeking Alpha, Tech Crunch, Silicon Alley Reporter, the musings of Newsosaur, etc., etc., etc.

Any ideas?

Why Couldn't Mainstream Media Stick to Its Core Competency?

The core competency of newspapers isn't production or distribution. The core competency of media companies in modern times has been aggregating audiences for advertisers by providing those audiences with compelling and relevant news content. (In olden days, before the development of the advertising industry, newspapers got all of their revenue from circulation). Think of printing presses as the manufacturing equivalent of web servers. Think of newspaper carriers as the physical equivalent of ISPs.

So what happens when someone is able to more efficiently aggregate advertisers without providing news (e.g. Google)? That's the dilemma newspapers face today.

Can Anything Save Newspapers?

Indeed it is like the buggy whip situation. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because they didn't understand they business they were in. They weren't in the buggy whip business, they were in the acceleration business. If they'd understood that, they would have started making accelerators for the newest form of conveyance (the automobile), and probably they'd be sitting around waiting for Congress to bail them out, but that's another story.

Newspaper publishers aren't in the news business. I know that sounds radical. But they really are intermediators whose business is assembling an audience for advertisers. They assemble an affluent and well-educated (albeit declining) audience by providing daily news on print. The question today is what new methods can they develop to aggregate audiences that aren't interested in print, or aren't interested in daily news.

Newspaper companies have assets -- relationships with advertisers, skilled staffers, powerful brands. So they need to learn to use those assets to aggregate audiences other than those who want to read news daily on paper. Which is not to say they shouldn't address that audience as well -- it's still more attractive in many ways than the mindless hordes who get their news from blogs about "Gossip Girl" etc.


On Dec 11 10:45 AM notsosmart wrote:

> its like the buggywhip-no need for it anymore.whats the big deal.when
> something no longer serves a purpose or is needed it goes away.anybody
> miss the coal fired steam engine?hard rubber tires?etc.i haent bothered
> with the ny times since they endorsed castro in the eisenhower years.
> i managed ok.

Deep Read: 'New York' on the Future of the 'Times'

Would that more newspaper proprietors were like the Sulzbergers. This is a remarkably unassuming family that has put the institution first and, unlike another prominent publisher in the news these days, refused to use that institution to pursue a private agenda. If America continues to become as dumb as I suspect it will, we'll have Fox and its imitators to thank, and not The New York Times.

The New York Times' Challenge with Non-Local Newspaper Ads

What this analysis fails to take note of is The Times' positioning of itself over the past 20 years as a "national" newspaper. In fact, The Times' daily circulation in the five boroughs of NYC is something less than 250,000 copies, which ranks it No. 5 among the six English-language dailies publishing in NYC.

So the print newspaper isn't chasing just local advertising. The Times gets a bigger percentage of its ad revenue from national advertising than any other general interest daily except USA Today. The New York Times Magazine is one of the magazine industry's leaders in ad pages. That national focus is why The Times is trying to sell a print subscription to Scott Karp in Leesburg, Va., and why it has established or contracted for home delivery services in most major metropolitan areas in the US.

And advertisers presumably want to advertise on The Times' website because they want to attract the kinds of customers who read the material that The Times generates. Those customers tend to be well-educated, affluent, and influential. That can't be said for users of all website (Facebook comes to mind).

That said, you are correct about the essential issue newspapers face: Now to make the transition from a high CPM print-based advertising model to a low-CPM web-based ad model. And I agree that The Times ought to do a better job of explaining to you why a print subscription offers an advantage over reading the paper on the web.

Free the New York Times's Archives!

Now, why does Felix Salmon think the New York Times should make its invaluable archives free? Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people pay to download archival material from the Times every day. It is a significant revenue source. I'm constantly amazed at how illiterate most web-savvy people are when it comes to business. But then, maybe Salmon is on to something. I'm going to ask Mobil to make the gas at my local station free!

New York Times: Poised for Gain

Agree that The Times is an unparalleled media brand. But Dorfman's whole case rests on the presumed willingness of the Sulzberger/Ochs family to eventually pack it in and yield the great institution that is The New York Times to someone with a very big wallet. It ain't gonna happen. This is a family whose name is synonymous with its newspaper (not the case with the Bancrofts). This is a family with members actually working at the newspaper (not the case with the Bancrofts).

And finally, why do people who buy shares in companies with two classes of stock later complain about the unfairness of it all? I recently bought a Subaru and am bummed that it doesn't have the pickup of a Porsche Boxster. Should I go back to the dealer and complain?