Newspaper Economics
Posted by DickH on 04 Aug 2008 at 09:43 pm | Tagged as: Technology
I read the other day that I had “little or no understanding of the media business” so I decided to become better informed. It didn’t take long to find some relevant material.
For example, by reading “Newspapers Could Be Bargains, but Few Are Buying” on the website of the New York Times, I learned that in just this past year, there’s been a “sharp shift” to “a more pessimistic long-term view of the [newspaper] industry” and that the value of shares of many publicly traded newspapers have dropped “50 to 75 percent.” With these steep declines in value, you’d think that someone would be buying up these bargains. But even “the most avid buyers” such as Media News Group (the owner of the Lowell Sun) “are in no position to keep buying.”
Alongside that story was a column lamenting the decline of The Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest daily newspaper. According to NYT business columnist David Carr, The Star-Ledger excels by living in two media worlds: By loading up on pictures and graphics while running a slick website, it’s squarely in the modern era, but it’s also a throwback to the days when the “most important story was the one just down the block.” But The Star-Ledger has fallen upon hard times, losing $30 to $40 million a year due to “a familiar litany of ailments, including the cratering of classifieds, department store consolidation and the flight of ad dollars to the internet.” So despite its online excellence and its emphasis on local coverage, The Star-Ledger’s future is bleak.
Well, that’s it for today’s lesson in newspaper economics. What will tomorrow bring?
LOL way to turn an insult on its head…
When the newspaper is gone, what will you people have to complain about? If you hate it so much,stop reading it.
What insult are you referring to?
Again, I still believe the small, local papers are what will survive, not the big public machines.
I’ve been studying the newspaper/media industry for a while now, and do see the issue as an economic downturn issue, as well as a technological issue.
The internet has changed must of the media business, but people are still against paying for what they consider should be free online.
I fear in the long run, a much greater loss of a good deal of the media.
Also, the bias of the big papers also loses them much their readership. (I did note to Shaw on sat am that I was surprised to see the Globe actually have an article on the front page attacking the state worker pension increase.. I think that was the first time I bought that paper in 7 or 8 years)
Local papers, local content, I still think is the only thing that will survive.
Just look at what Tommy Duggan has done with a free giveaway paper.
Free content, only local content.. gone from 2000 to 20000 monthly printing in less than 2 years.
The content is not always of the quality I would want, but then again, I know what I’m getting.
He makes a living off of that.
I think I did note exactly what Dick does here, the local paper is hampered by the loss of classified ads, big box stores wiping out local ones (consolidation thus reducing advertisers), and the movement of advertising to the web.
Then again.. maybe Lynne was referring to some other post than mine. I don’t think Dick minds hearing a different opinion, and wouldn’t take it as an insult.
Lowellgirl: you seem to think that we like to complain.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I only like to complain when there’s something that needs complaining about. If the paper was what I would want it to be - fair, tough, and ethical - trust me, I’ll be happy to close up shop and stop blogging. It takes a lot of time out of my day as it is, time I could be, I dunno, making money or something.
Shawn: “I read the other day that I had ‘little or no understanding of the media business’” doesn’t sound a little insulting? (Granted I got the impression that Dick had been singled out specifically in print somehow, not on a blog post talking about media, since there was no context.) Anyway, what I was specifically saying is that he turned the whole idea on its head by creating an educational moment for whoever said it, as well as for readers.
I think Shawn is right about the local content being key to the preservation of the realtively-small town newspaper.
The SUN has developed that premise lately with some pretty good stories on historical characters from the area. And they finally wrote up a story on the issue of the ZBA’s recalcitrant postion on the Western Avenue Studios. (That may be an issue that deserves much more discussion).
As it gave good coverage of the events and related business from the Folk Festival, they may want to build up to other events planned in the City such as the MA Poetry Festival in October that PaulM has described in an earlier post.
Shawn, while you are right in your assessment of “how” local papers will survive, “our” local paper isn’t doing those things.
As I sat down last night to read our local “news”paper it struck me that on the front page there were only two local “News” articles. The rest were stories that, at one time, made up the bulk of a Sunday paper, when people liked to sit down and read features.
I turned to the Local News page and there wasn’t a single story there that I would classify as anything but a Sunday paper feature!
While your assessment of how a local newspaper will survive is correct, the management of this local paper doesn’t get it.
I assume he read it here. The relevant quote:
As for seeing so many “feature” stories in the paper, I enjoy reading them. The writers are very talented and the stories are fun to read. Anyway, you also need to remember that it is the summer, a time when news coming out of government and business is notoriously slow.