If flat is the new black when it comes to corporate profits, than a small decline in readership is the new fashion for newspapers. The print editions, anyway.
While the WSJournal saw an 1.82% increase in its circulation, the rest of the top 25 saw a modest decline -- which is good news, actually.
Check out the Journal article here or check out the poorly formatted list (below).
Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspapers
Newspaper Name Total Paid Circulation M-F as of 9/30/10 As of 9/30/09 % Change
The Wall Street Journal 2,061,142 2,024,269 1.82%
USA Today 1,830,594 1,900,116 -3.66%
New York Times 876,638 927,851 -5.52%
Los Angeles Times 600,449 657,467 -8.67%
Washington Post 545,345 582,844 -6.43%
New York Daily News 512,520 544,167 -5.82%
New York Post 501,501 508,042 -1.29%
San Jose Mercury News 477,592 N/A
Chicago Tribune 441,508 465,892 -5.23%
Houston Chronicle 343,952 384,437 -10.53%
Philadelphia Inquirer 342,361 361,481 -5.29%
Newsday 314,848 357,124 -11.84%
Denver Post 309,863 340,949 -9.12%
Arizona Republic 308,973 316,873 -2.49%
Minneapolis Star Tribune 297,478 304,544 -2.32%
Dallas Morning News 264,459 263,810 0.25%
Cleveland Plain Dealer 252,608 271,182 -6.85%
Seattle Times 251,697 263,588 -4.51%
Chicago Sun-Times 250,747 275,641 -9.03%
Detroit Free Press 245,326 269,729 -9.05%
St. Petersburg Times 239,684 240,146 -0.19%
Oregonian 239,071 249,164 -4.05%
San Diego Union-Tribune 224,761 242,693 -7.39%
San Francisco Chronicle 223,549 251,782 -11.21%
Newark Star-Ledger 223,037 246,006 -9.34%
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Even as Print Newspapers are in Trouble, Newspapers Contniue to Set the Agenda
Everyone knows newspapers are in trouble. Advertising has dried up. Readership has declined. Papers have cut circulation, laid off reporters and editorial staff.
Yet there's interesting news about the impact of newspapers.
They still set the agenda for news cycles.
According to a New York Times article, "Study Finds That Papers Lead in Providing New Information": "Looking at six major story lines that developed over one week last July, 83 percent of the reports in local news media “were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information,” said the study, by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center."
Most of the new or original reporting came from reporters at newspapers, despite the increase in the number of news outlets available online.
Presumably, most of the rest of the coverage consisted of repetition and commentary, not new reporting.
That's going to be a problem as it seems likely to be more editorial layoffs in the short-term. With fewer reporters and fewer resources, there will be less new reporting even as the echo chamber gets louder.
Yet there's interesting news about the impact of newspapers.
They still set the agenda for news cycles.
According to a New York Times article, "Study Finds That Papers Lead in Providing New Information": "Looking at six major story lines that developed over one week last July, 83 percent of the reports in local news media “were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information,” said the study, by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center."
Most of the new or original reporting came from reporters at newspapers, despite the increase in the number of news outlets available online.
Presumably, most of the rest of the coverage consisted of repetition and commentary, not new reporting.
That's going to be a problem as it seems likely to be more editorial layoffs in the short-term. With fewer reporters and fewer resources, there will be less new reporting even as the echo chamber gets louder.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Has Print Advertising Started to Recover? And what does that mean for PR?
According to the Wall St. Journal, "Ad Influx Brightens Hopes For Newspapers, Magazines," some print magazines are posting small increases in their advertising pages for March (I know, it's only Jan., but magazines issues are often working three months ahead).
That's good news, even if we're takling about a 3% increase over last year. Which still represents a significant decrease from a couple years back.
Which is to say: a long way back from being called robust.
Yet, every increase in advertising pages could be good news for PR functions since there's traditionally every additional ad page increase includes an additional page of editorial. That means more opportunity for PR functions.
Ok, that may be only a 3% increase in March, but that's better news than what we saw for all of 2009.
Here's to a better year!
That's good news, even if we're takling about a 3% increase over last year. Which still represents a significant decrease from a couple years back.
Which is to say: a long way back from being called robust.
Yet, every increase in advertising pages could be good news for PR functions since there's traditionally every additional ad page increase includes an additional page of editorial. That means more opportunity for PR functions.
Ok, that may be only a 3% increase in March, but that's better news than what we saw for all of 2009.
Here's to a better year!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Should the Government Subsidize Newspapers?
For the past year, some journalists and editors have suggested that one way to help print journalism is to get government subsidies.
Now, in the past, the government has used farm subsidies to enact policy. So we had farmers paid not to farm, for example.
Would we pay journalists not to write -- if so, how do I get in line for that? Would the government reward papers for certain types of coverage (more patriotic news) and penalize them by cutting back support for other types of coverage (like reporting on scandals among politicians)?
I do believe that newspapers are important to our democracy working. The question is how to support them when the market isn't. I don't think subsidies are the way to go, and neither does Seth Lipsky, former editor at the Forward and the New York Sun. Check out his Journal op-ed,
All the News That's Fit to Subsidize, http://bit.ly/1IB35a.
And note, the swipe at the Times.
Now, in the past, the government has used farm subsidies to enact policy. So we had farmers paid not to farm, for example.
Would we pay journalists not to write -- if so, how do I get in line for that? Would the government reward papers for certain types of coverage (more patriotic news) and penalize them by cutting back support for other types of coverage (like reporting on scandals among politicians)?
I do believe that newspapers are important to our democracy working. The question is how to support them when the market isn't. I don't think subsidies are the way to go, and neither does Seth Lipsky, former editor at the Forward and the New York Sun. Check out his Journal op-ed,
All the News That's Fit to Subsidize, http://bit.ly/1IB35a.
And note, the swipe at the Times.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Worst Headline of the Day: NYT: Newspapers Have Not Hit Bottom, Analysts Say
The real news is that newspaper declines should slow in Q4.
Ok, so that's not as catchy a headline.
And that's not as if the analyst is predicting an immediate recovery.
But slowing declines is good news.
You'd think the Times would want to publish a headline that positioned the industry better than "Newspapers Have Not Hit Bottom, Analysts Say."
Perhaps that's another problem with newspapers: they focus too much on the negative.
Ok, so that's not as catchy a headline.
And that's not as if the analyst is predicting an immediate recovery.
But slowing declines is good news.
You'd think the Times would want to publish a headline that positioned the industry better than "Newspapers Have Not Hit Bottom, Analysts Say."
Perhaps that's another problem with newspapers: they focus too much on the negative.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Importance of News
In "Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy," Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, makes an important argument: that newspapers serve democracy in ways that websites have not.
According to Jones, 85 percent of fact-based news comes from newspapers. Other media, including TV and the websites, pick up their news and analysis from what's uncovered by newspapers. This has been true for a long time -- I've seen many cases were NY Times stories set the agenda for the morning shows and have a domino impact throughout the day. Jones says that's still the case today.
The news is not merely what happened yesterday, but an awareness and context for information. For example, it can takes months of investigative journalism to sort truth from rumors and provide the public with information.
And, Jones claims, 150-word articles on a website are not designed to ferret out that kind of news.
The solution: We continue to need organizations that track and uncover news. It just might not be traditional newspapers, although Jones is more optimistic on this point. Well worth checking out. Or, if you don't have time, check out Harold Evans' review in the New York Times.
According to Jones, 85 percent of fact-based news comes from newspapers. Other media, including TV and the websites, pick up their news and analysis from what's uncovered by newspapers. This has been true for a long time -- I've seen many cases were NY Times stories set the agenda for the morning shows and have a domino impact throughout the day. Jones says that's still the case today.
The news is not merely what happened yesterday, but an awareness and context for information. For example, it can takes months of investigative journalism to sort truth from rumors and provide the public with information.
And, Jones claims, 150-word articles on a website are not designed to ferret out that kind of news.
The solution: We continue to need organizations that track and uncover news. It just might not be traditional newspapers, although Jones is more optimistic on this point. Well worth checking out. Or, if you don't have time, check out Harold Evans' review in the New York Times.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Turning Distribution Into Revenue
The thing about journalism is this: reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.
People continue to want news. They just don't necessarily want it in print form.
It's too slow. It's about what happened yesterday, after all.
It's not convenient. You can have it delivered to your home or office or pick it up from a newsstand -- but the printed newspaper isn't available on your smart phone, your iPod, etc.
It's too expensive.
What's interesting is that technology has transformed the first two complaints: you can now get real-time news updates and you can access it on your smart phone, on e-readers like Kindle, etc.
Technology has improved distribution of the news. But while it has brought some costs down significantly, technology still hasn't generated revenue streams to pay for the news.
Even providing an iPhone App hasn't solved the revenue question, as reported in the New York Times, "There’s an App for That. But a Revenue Stream?" Check out "For Murdoch, It’s Try, Try Again" by the Times' David Carr, which looks at ways Murdoch, the Times, Boston Globe and others are thinking about getting consumers to pay for news content.
As Murdoch told the Times, "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news Web sites.”
By doing so, Murdoch and others will establish a wall that will prevent search engines from finding the content, and reduce the number of people able to access that content. Then it will become more important for PR functions to use social media to raise awareness of the coverage about their client or organization.
Still, the first challenge is to get people to pay for general news. Check out a New York Times article from today about the Financial Times, "Financial Times Feels Vindicated by Web Strategy," which looks at how the FT's strategy of putting its content behind a pay wall has been paying off. Up next for the FT is a system of micropayments.
People continue to want news. They just don't necessarily want it in print form.
It's too slow. It's about what happened yesterday, after all.
It's not convenient. You can have it delivered to your home or office or pick it up from a newsstand -- but the printed newspaper isn't available on your smart phone, your iPod, etc.
It's too expensive.
What's interesting is that technology has transformed the first two complaints: you can now get real-time news updates and you can access it on your smart phone, on e-readers like Kindle, etc.
Technology has improved distribution of the news. But while it has brought some costs down significantly, technology still hasn't generated revenue streams to pay for the news.
Even providing an iPhone App hasn't solved the revenue question, as reported in the New York Times, "There’s an App for That. But a Revenue Stream?" Check out "For Murdoch, It’s Try, Try Again" by the Times' David Carr, which looks at ways Murdoch, the Times, Boston Globe and others are thinking about getting consumers to pay for news content.
As Murdoch told the Times, "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news Web sites.”
By doing so, Murdoch and others will establish a wall that will prevent search engines from finding the content, and reduce the number of people able to access that content. Then it will become more important for PR functions to use social media to raise awareness of the coverage about their client or organization.
Still, the first challenge is to get people to pay for general news. Check out a New York Times article from today about the Financial Times, "Financial Times Feels Vindicated by Web Strategy," which looks at how the FT's strategy of putting its content behind a pay wall has been paying off. Up next for the FT is a system of micropayments.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Meanwhile Bad News in NH After a Newspaper Closes
So while the Seattle Times is doing better, another paper has closed. I had never heard of the Claremont (NH) Eagle Tribune, but the Boston Globe ran an interesting article about the impact on the town when the Eagle Tribune shut down.
Check out the article, "In N.H. city, a hard-to-fill void after paper closes." The Globe also includes a video to add more interactivity to the story.
Check out the article, "In N.H. city, a hard-to-fill void after paper closes." The Globe also includes a video to add more interactivity to the story.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Voice or Two Grows in San Diego
Let's be clear: lots of newspapers are encountering significant problems due to the Great Recession. That's been a theme I've been covering in this blog. Major market papers have closed or shifted to online-only, laid off or offered buy-outs to employees, shifted publication schedules, etc.
Lots of publications have been put quietly or quite loudly on the market -- with no takers, and deadlines for bids extended again and again.
It's been ugly.
But one point I've tried to make is that the problem print newspapers have been encountering does not have anything to do with circulation or readership demand.
In fact, it's clear that the public still wants and craves news.
They just may not be as attached to the actual paper it's been printed on.
The industry's problems are more financial than readership.
As we shifted from 8-track tape to CDs, we're now at an inflection point with delivery mechanisms of news.
The current Forbes offers a story about two news startups in San Diego, "San Diego News Shoot-Out: As a newspaper monopoly crumbles, unorthodox upstarts storm the marketplace. Welcome to the future of journalism." What it shows is that people are still interested in covering and delivering news -- just as there continues to be demand to read the news.
The challenges include:
Lots of publications have been put quietly or quite loudly on the market -- with no takers, and deadlines for bids extended again and again.
It's been ugly.
But one point I've tried to make is that the problem print newspapers have been encountering does not have anything to do with circulation or readership demand.
In fact, it's clear that the public still wants and craves news.
They just may not be as attached to the actual paper it's been printed on.
The industry's problems are more financial than readership.
As we shifted from 8-track tape to CDs, we're now at an inflection point with delivery mechanisms of news.
The current Forbes offers a story about two news startups in San Diego, "San Diego News Shoot-Out: As a newspaper monopoly crumbles, unorthodox upstarts storm the marketplace. Welcome to the future of journalism." What it shows is that people are still interested in covering and delivering news -- just as there continues to be demand to read the news.
The challenges include:
- How to make the new news credible.
- How to make delivering the news -- in whatever format -- profitable or at at least sustainable.
It's worth checking out both startups profiled in the Forbes article.
The challenge for us in PR is to find ways to work with the new news -- and to provide context to our clients and bosses that these new outlets are indeed worthwhile to pursue.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Should Newspapers Get Bailouts?
Today's Boston Globe ran an interesting op-ed, "A perfect storm for paper: Sinking revenues and the Internet force journalists worldwide to remake their troubled industry." Makes the point that European newspapers are getting bailout support because newspapers are "considered essential to the national health."
The rest of the article looks at the "perfect storm" buffeting papers. Not much new there.
What is -- is the recognition that newspapers' role won't be replicated by online sites and bloggers. I do agree with that notion.
The rest of the article looks at the "perfect storm" buffeting papers. Not much new there.
What is -- is the recognition that newspapers' role won't be replicated by online sites and bloggers. I do agree with that notion.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Cost Cutting Won't Save Newspapers, Analyst Says
Quote of the day from the Boston Globe:
Newspapers cannot cost cut themselves to prosperity and an online-only newspaper is not profitable, not even close. We do not have a solution on how to solve the difficulties newspapers face," Craig Huber, Barclays Capital.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Future of Newspapers When They No Longer Print on Paper
We've been recommending that companies (clients and nonclients) consider optimizing their news and information for search engines and Web 2.0. Not all are on board because of some very good reasons:
The answer is that PR has to re-imagine itself to be relevant to our clients and to the people we're trying to reach on behalf of clients. And if newspapers want to charge for their online content, they have to re-imagine themselves, too.
From an eyeballs' perspective, online newspapers are spectacularly successful. More people read newspapers online than read the hardcopy editions of newspapers.
From a financial perspective, of course, this has been the worst year/period ever for newspapers in terms of revenue.
Few people actually pay for online news. So the question that publishers need to be asking themselves is:
If invented today, newspapers' online navigation and searchability would be improved. We might have a page with headlines and a 140-character summary of the article -- not just the article's first line -- and if interested, a link to click on to read more.
That leads to an answer for the second question: you could charge readers a monthly package for a certain number of articles they clicked through to read or an unlimited package (borrowing on plans offered by cellphone companies).
I'm not going to address here how to charge advertisers.
But given the plethora of choices of free news services, newspapers trying to achieve profitability through an online-only business model have to do more than just repurpose and post their print mindset to the the Internet.
Unfortunately, too many are not doing the work to invent a news outlet today. And they're doing so for similar reasons some companies are not embracing Web 2.0 for their PR functions.
But the bottom-line is this: If all they do is repurpose the print version, newspapers won't survive online. They must redefine the experience so that readers will be willing to pay. If they don't redefine the reader's experience, newspapers will fail.
There are two interesting articles in today's New York Times:
- Costs: Concern about needing additional investment in marketing given current conditions. Costs could include professional production of video and audio.
- Training: Identifying the skill sets required, and making sure staffers have that training.
- Metrics: Establishing benchmarks that are appropriate and meaningful and help quantify ROI.
The answer is that PR has to re-imagine itself to be relevant to our clients and to the people we're trying to reach on behalf of clients. And if newspapers want to charge for their online content, they have to re-imagine themselves, too.
From an eyeballs' perspective, online newspapers are spectacularly successful. More people read newspapers online than read the hardcopy editions of newspapers.
From a financial perspective, of course, this has been the worst year/period ever for newspapers in terms of revenue.
Few people actually pay for online news. So the question that publishers need to be asking themselves is:
- If we were inventing newspapers today, what would they look like?
- How would they charge their readers?
- How would they charge their advertisers?
If invented today, newspapers' online navigation and searchability would be improved. We might have a page with headlines and a 140-character summary of the article -- not just the article's first line -- and if interested, a link to click on to read more.
That leads to an answer for the second question: you could charge readers a monthly package for a certain number of articles they clicked through to read or an unlimited package (borrowing on plans offered by cellphone companies).
I'm not going to address here how to charge advertisers.
But given the plethora of choices of free news services, newspapers trying to achieve profitability through an online-only business model have to do more than just repurpose and post their print mindset to the the Internet.
Unfortunately, too many are not doing the work to invent a news outlet today. And they're doing so for similar reasons some companies are not embracing Web 2.0 for their PR functions.
But the bottom-line is this: If all they do is repurpose the print version, newspapers won't survive online. They must redefine the experience so that readers will be willing to pay. If they don't redefine the reader's experience, newspapers will fail.
There are two interesting articles in today's New York Times:
- "‘Hyperlocal’ Web Sites Deliver News Without Newspapers": Which looks at a few sites offering news based on your block. That seems like an okay alternative for cities, but probably does not provide a bigger picture of what's going on in the entire city.
- "Papers Try to Get Out of a Box": by David Carr, who sums up the situation like this: "The taking of one company’s content and selling ads against it for the benefit of another company is simply not fair, no matter what the lawyers stipulate. But even though this is not the world newspapers might have chosen, it is the one that they live in. Deprived of links — the oxygen of the Internet — many news providers would wither away."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Could Twitter Help Newspapers' Decline
According to a recent post on Media Bullseye, Old Media's New Voice, newspapers that embrace Twitter are actually doing well -- as long as they don't see Twitter simply as an RSS feed.
A reporter at the Austin American-Statesman, Robert Quigley says, being on Twitter for a newspaper is "not just about driving page views to our site (which it does), it's also a marketing campaign."
Further, he provides some advice that's useful for any organization either thinking of or already using Twitter: "Put a real person behind that account. Twitter is too personal, in my opinion, for RSS feeds. That back-and-forth conversation can be very rewarding."
Among other reasons to be on Twitter, Quigley notes that it's a great platform to reach mobile devices.
Check out the article.
A reporter at the Austin American-Statesman, Robert Quigley says, being on Twitter for a newspaper is "not just about driving page views to our site (which it does), it's also a marketing campaign."
Further, he provides some advice that's useful for any organization either thinking of or already using Twitter: "Put a real person behind that account. Twitter is too personal, in my opinion, for RSS feeds. That back-and-forth conversation can be very rewarding."
Among other reasons to be on Twitter, Quigley notes that it's a great platform to reach mobile devices.
Check out the article.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Some thoughts on hyperlocal media & the nature of PR
I had an interesting conversation on Twitter with Todd Pipitone, aka tjpip on Twitter, a marketing coordinator handling PR, social media, and marketing for a nonprofit. He's also a local newspaper reporter.
Responding to a previous blog post, that pointed out that the owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer was a PR executive and that experience hasn't turned out well (since the paper is in bankruptcy), Todd wrote, "What if PR folks started online localized news site & then published paper?"
I thought that was an interesting question.
Especially since the PR industry is being impacted by the huge shock waves impacting print journalism.
So did Todd think that PR folks could start their own news sites as a a way to reach new clients? Or to communicate messages via a new channel? Either way, how would such a news site pay for itself?
Todd responded, "That is the kicker. I'm thinking it would have to be free, but ads? Also possible subscription? Are blogs filling the gap now?"
Blogs may be filling the gap -- although not in covering mundane but important things like town meetings.
And even if blogs do fill the gap, few blogs can cover everything a newspaper has covered, making it more difficult to find information in one place. And that makes it more difficult to reach people, especially as they are searching for exactly what they want while ignoring even scanning headlines of other news that may impact them -- but they won't know about it in a search-focused world.
One challenge will be that we're seeing the fragmentation of communication channels, and that increases noise. Todd suggests, and I agree with him, that the "time is ripe to provide it all in one spot again on hyperlocal level."
In fact, an opportunity may exist in tapping local pride, if marketed correctly, "similar to what happens on college campuses with their paper" and how the subscriptions are sold to alumni."
I agree. I think to succeed with hyperlocal will mean rethinking the value that readers want. But personalized news readers have not taken off as a true replacement. Clearly an answer has yet to come.
Responding to a previous blog post, that pointed out that the owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer was a PR executive and that experience hasn't turned out well (since the paper is in bankruptcy), Todd wrote, "What if PR folks started online localized news site & then published paper?"
I thought that was an interesting question.
Especially since the PR industry is being impacted by the huge shock waves impacting print journalism.
So did Todd think that PR folks could start their own news sites as a a way to reach new clients? Or to communicate messages via a new channel? Either way, how would such a news site pay for itself?
Todd responded, "That is the kicker. I'm thinking it would have to be free, but ads? Also possible subscription? Are blogs filling the gap now?"
Blogs may be filling the gap -- although not in covering mundane but important things like town meetings.
And even if blogs do fill the gap, few blogs can cover everything a newspaper has covered, making it more difficult to find information in one place. And that makes it more difficult to reach people, especially as they are searching for exactly what they want while ignoring even scanning headlines of other news that may impact them -- but they won't know about it in a search-focused world.
One challenge will be that we're seeing the fragmentation of communication channels, and that increases noise. Todd suggests, and I agree with him, that the "time is ripe to provide it all in one spot again on hyperlocal level."
In fact, an opportunity may exist in tapping local pride, if marketed correctly, "similar to what happens on college campuses with their paper" and how the subscriptions are sold to alumni."
I agree. I think to succeed with hyperlocal will mean rethinking the value that readers want. But personalized news readers have not taken off as a true replacement. Clearly an answer has yet to come.
Friday, February 27, 2009
R.M.N - R.I.P. -- Rocky Mountain News
Sad news from Denver. The Rocky Mountain News, which would have celebrated its 150th anniversary in April, published its last issue today.
Denver was one of the few remaining two-paper markets. Now it has the Denver Post, which should break-even, experts said, although it will have higher operating costs (since it had split back office costs with the RMN, not be confused with Richard Milhouse Nixon).
For now, other two-paper markets include New York, Los Angles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Detroit, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
But the Los Angeles Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and both Detroit papers are owned by holding companies that have declared bankruptcy, have declared bankrupty itself, had the parent company announce a deadline to sell or close the paper, or cut back its publishing schedule.
That doesn't include buyouts at the Boston Globe, financial machinations at the New York Times.
Meanwhile, here's a very moving look at the final edition of the Rocky: Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.
Denver was one of the few remaining two-paper markets. Now it has the Denver Post, which should break-even, experts said, although it will have higher operating costs (since it had split back office costs with the RMN, not be confused with Richard Milhouse Nixon).
For now, other two-paper markets include New York, Los Angles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Detroit, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
But the Los Angeles Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and both Detroit papers are owned by holding companies that have declared bankruptcy, have declared bankrupty itself, had the parent company announce a deadline to sell or close the paper, or cut back its publishing schedule.
That doesn't include buyouts at the Boston Globe, financial machinations at the New York Times.
Meanwhile, here's a very moving look at the final edition of the Rocky: Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Another Day, Another Newspaper Files for Bankruptcy
It was a tough weekend for East Coast newspapers.
Both the holding company of Philadelphia's two newspapers -- Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia News -- as well as the holding company of the New Haven Register and 19 other dailies filed for bankruptcy.
Three other newspapers companies have filed for bankruptcy since Dec. 2008.
And more are in precarious positions. The New York Times recently cut its dividend again to save capital for the business.
As a side note, what's interesting is that yesterday's Journal article took aim at its midtown rival, reporting: "Newspaper companies have been pounded by spiraling advertising declines, but many of their wounds are self-inflicted," and then mentioned the New York Times.
At the same time, the New York Times took a bigger potshot against the Journal in an article,
"Murdoch’s Soft Spot for Print Slows News Corp." Of course, by saying that News Corp's dependence on its newspaper business is dragging down its revenues, is not a great point for the Times to make -- since the Times is suffering from the same trends.
But at least they get to bash the Journal.
As for PR functions, there are two lessons from this:
Both the holding company of Philadelphia's two newspapers -- Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia News -- as well as the holding company of the New Haven Register and 19 other dailies filed for bankruptcy.
Three other newspapers companies have filed for bankruptcy since Dec. 2008.
And more are in precarious positions. The New York Times recently cut its dividend again to save capital for the business.
As a side note, what's interesting is that yesterday's Journal article took aim at its midtown rival, reporting: "Newspaper companies have been pounded by spiraling advertising declines, but many of their wounds are self-inflicted," and then mentioned the New York Times.
At the same time, the New York Times took a bigger potshot against the Journal in an article,
"Murdoch’s Soft Spot for Print Slows News Corp." Of course, by saying that News Corp's dependence on its newspaper business is dragging down its revenues, is not a great point for the Times to make -- since the Times is suffering from the same trends.
But at least they get to bash the Journal.
As for PR functions, there are two lessons from this:
- Look for more layoffs and cutbacks at large metro papers. Which means: we need to find alternative ways to communicate information to key audiences.
- Don't try to buy newspapers -- which is what Brian Tierney, a Philadelphia public-relations executive, did. The deal has not worked so well for him.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
If Newspapers Move to Online-Only Mode, What Should We Call Them?
When the majority of newspapers all shift to online-only mode, the term "newspaper" will be outdated.
We may still have journalists publishing news online under logos of recognized news brands, but they won't be newspapers since they won't actually be printing their news on paper.
We will need a new definition of news organization.
We suggest calling them “newssites” (based on the soon-to-be outdated newsstand).
Calling them “dailies” is so last century, given the 24/7 online news cycle.
We may still have journalists publishing news online under logos of recognized news brands, but they won't be newspapers since they won't actually be printing their news on paper.
We will need a new definition of news organization.
We suggest calling them “newssites” (based on the soon-to-be outdated newsstand).
Calling them “dailies” is so last century, given the 24/7 online news cycle.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Are Newspapers dead?
Check out http://www.newspaperdeadpool.com/.
Also, check out "Media Companies Cull 30,000 in Fight for Their Future." The subhead is instructive: "
Execs Blame Recession as They Wield the Ax, but This Is About Reinvention, too."
While it's not relevant to newspapers, NPR to Cut Expenses, Shrink Staff, according to Wall St. Journal.
This some hope for journalism in "Beyond the Great Press Crash of 2008" by Peter Osnos, Century Foundation:
Also, check out "Media Companies Cull 30,000 in Fight for Their Future." The subhead is instructive: "
Execs Blame Recession as They Wield the Ax, but This Is About Reinvention, too."While it's not relevant to newspapers, NPR to Cut Expenses, Shrink Staff, according to Wall St. Journal.
This some hope for journalism in "Beyond the Great Press Crash of 2008" by Peter Osnos, Century Foundation:
So here, in the briefest of summaries, are avenues for innovation:1. Reestablish the principle that news has to be paid for by someone: the consumer, the advertiser, or the distributor. (See the Platform for November 3, 2008: “Make Google Pay.”)
2. Private equity investment in new brands or renewed confidence in such stalwarts as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which are hurting badly but would revive if they can make money from others (for example, search engines) through fees for their content.
3. Accept the role of news as a public service to be supported by the community through public funds, membership, and sponsorship of various kinds. This is, of course, the model that has been in place for decades at public radio and PBS.
Thomas C. Rubin, chief counsel for intellectual property strategy at Microsoft, recently gave a thoughtful speech to the U.K. Association of Online Publishers, making many of the points reflected above. As precedents for the news business to consider, he cites the challenges to Napster’s effort to make music free, which fell apart when it was found liable for copyright infringement. Music again became a saleable commodity with the advent iTunes. Next came YouTube, which was helping itself to content—until it was sued for a billion dollars by Viacom. Now Hulu is gaining traction by selling the same sort of material. Why can’t the news business challenge free use of copyrighted material? It can, and almost certainly should.
The financial model for gathering news can definitely be revived. No one disputes how bad things have gotten. So the only way forward is to focus on solutions. Innovation, please.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Robert Scoble on How Tech Can Save the Newspaper Industry
I've written a lot about the problems of the newspaper industry. Tech blogger and Fast Company columnist, Robert Scoble, wrote an interesting article, "What Newspapers Can Learn From the Tech Industry: Technology has caused many of the newspaper business's woes. Here's how it can play a role in the industry's survival." It worth reading.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
More Bad News for Newspapers, Part IV? Part V?
It's difficult to keep track these days. Another day, another piece of bad news for the newspaper industry.
I write this, as always, as someone who loves newspapers, and wants to see them succeed.
But things are pretty bad, and the New York Times continues its coverage of an industry in decline. Check out "Newspapers Could Be Bargains, but Few Are Buying" by Richard Perez-Pena.
This time out, Perez-Pena reports that a lot of newspapers are being shopped around, but no one's really interested.
Or, to pick up the quote from Ken Doctor, a newspaper analyst with Outsell, "A year ago, the conventional wisdom was, 'Yep, there are problems out there, but there's still significant value. Now it's 'Run away."
The latest paper hitting a wall is the Newark Star-Ledger by David Carr. Owned by Advance Publications, which is owned in turn by the billionaire Newhouse family, the Newark Star-Ledger is, in the words of of Donald E. Newhouse, president of Advance, "cannot be sustained by us or anyone else...This is the reality we face. The perfect storm. And it shows no sign of letting up."
That could be a negotiating tactic with the unions -- and Advance is asking unions and non-union employees to make concessions. But the Newhouses tend to be good owners, a case Carr makes.
The Newark Star-Ledger is a good paper.
But that may not be enough to keep it going.
I write this, as always, as someone who loves newspapers, and wants to see them succeed.
But things are pretty bad, and the New York Times continues its coverage of an industry in decline. Check out "Newspapers Could Be Bargains, but Few Are Buying" by Richard Perez-Pena.
This time out, Perez-Pena reports that a lot of newspapers are being shopped around, but no one's really interested.
Or, to pick up the quote from Ken Doctor, a newspaper analyst with Outsell, "A year ago, the conventional wisdom was, 'Yep, there are problems out there, but there's still significant value. Now it's 'Run away."
The latest paper hitting a wall is the Newark Star-Ledger by David Carr. Owned by Advance Publications, which is owned in turn by the billionaire Newhouse family, the Newark Star-Ledger is, in the words of of Donald E. Newhouse, president of Advance, "cannot be sustained by us or anyone else...This is the reality we face. The perfect storm. And it shows no sign of letting up."
That could be a negotiating tactic with the unions -- and Advance is asking unions and non-union employees to make concessions. But the Newhouses tend to be good owners, a case Carr makes.
The Newark Star-Ledger is a good paper.
But that may not be enough to keep it going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)