The End of Newspapers

[Tugg Speedman]

Newspaper circulation is at a 91 year low! 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Peaked right when Al Gore invented the Internet. What are readership vs. these circulation trends?

I maintain the Internet didn't kill newspapers, it killed their ad revenues. Autotrader, Craigslist, Realtor.com, Amazon. People still are looking for news and content. They still want advertisers to pay for it.

[Herman Cain]

The newspaper industry is not dead though. I recently met with one of the leading newspaper companies in the country and they are still looking to acquire .

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

The newspaper industry is not dead though. I recently met with one of the leading newspaper companies in the country and they are still looking to acquire .

Isn't that because consolidation cuts costs, not expansion?

[GooooMarquette]

Isn't that because consolidation cuts costs, not expansion?

That was my thought.  One set of writers, fifty papers to put their articles in....

[MU82]

The Times, Post and WSJ all have gotten a nice bump in the last year.

Seems people want actual reporters capable of uncovering corruption and news organizations willing to spend the money to fund the reporters' pursuit of stories.

Obviously, the easy thing is to yell, "Fake News!" whenever one is found with one's hand in the Russki jar!

All I know is that it will be a sad day for our country if newspapers ever do go belly-up. Fortunately, it would appear that day is quite a ways away, at least for the newspapers that are willing and able to pursue big stories.

[B. McBannerson]

The Times, Post and WSJ all have gotten a nice bump in the last year.

Seems people want actual reporters capable of uncovering corruption and news organizations willing to spend the money to fund the reporters' pursuit of stories.

Are you suggesting prior to the last year they weren't doing their jobs? On hiatus? Not interested?

[Tugg Speedman]

Despite subscription surges for largest U.S. newspapers, circulation and revenue fall for industry overall
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/

A Pew Research Center analysis of data from AAM shows that total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers – both print and digital – fell 8% in 2016, marking the 28th consecutive year of declines. (Sunday circulation also fell 8%.) The overall decline includes a 10% decrease in weekday print circulation (9% for Sundays) and a 1% decline in weekday digital circulation (1% rise for Sundays). Total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers fell to 35 million, while total Sunday circulation declined to 38 million – the lowest levels since 1945. (For more information on how these totals were calculated, see our fact sheet.)

[Tugg Speedman]

The Times, Post and WSJ all have gotten a nice bump in the last year.

Seems people want actual reporters capable of uncovering corruption and news organizations willing to spend the money to fund the reporters' pursuit of stories.

Obviously, the easy thing is to yell, "Fake News!" whenever one is found with one's hand in the Russki jar!

All I know is that it will be a sad day for our country if newspapers ever do go belly-up. Fortunately, it would appear that day is quite a ways away, at least for the newspapers that are willing and able to pursue big stories.

The highlighted part is true.  But they do not have to pay for it.  It is covered by free blogs. 

The problem with newspapers is their editorial process is perceived to be partisan so their argument about "rigorous review" is not going to convince people to pay them instead of reading free blogs.

Newspapers are now an age thing.  Old people read them and as they die off, so will the medium.  Eventually, the Post, Times and WSJ will employ about 100 people each, 50 in content creation (reporters and editors) and 50 in IT.  The rest will be gone.

And see The Upshot on the New York Times website.  That is the section where they put together cool interactive graphics.  I would argue the "future" of journalism is having a degree or advanced knowledge in data science, or statistics and programming.  Soon J-schools will have to include classes in these disciplines.

[PBRme]

Anybody that is still a subscriber (like me) to the Milwaukee's revised and now Gannett morning paper has to be more than a little disappointed with the rapid decline in the quality of the information content (both local, human interest, and national) in the paper.  I enjoy reading my morning papers WSJ, Milwaukee Journal, but the journal no longer seems worth it.

[mu_hilltopper]

Anybody that is still a subscriber (like me) to the Milwaukee's revised and now Gannett morning paper has to be more than a little disappointed with the rapid decline in the quality of the information content (both local, human interest, and national) in the paper.  I enjoy reading my morning papers WSJ, Milwaukee Journal, but the journal no longer seems worth it.

+1000000.  I've subscribed 7 days a week 20+ years.  Each year they cut more and more content out, and I feel like a sucker.

[Pakuni]

The highlighted part is true.  But they do not have to pay for it.  It is covered by free blogs. 

The problem with newspapers is their editorial process is perceived to be partisan so their argument about "rigorous review" is not going to convince people to pay them instead of reading free blogs.

Newspapers are now an age thing.  Old people read them and as they die off, so will the medium.  Eventually, the Post, Times and WSJ will employ about 100 people each, 50 in content creation (reporters and editors) and 50 in IT.  The rest will be gone.

And see The Upshot on the New York Times website.  That is the section where they put together cool interactive graphics.  I would argue the "future" of journalism is having a degree or advanced knowledge in data science, or statistics and programming.  Soon J-schools will have to include classes in these disciplines.

Data-based journalism has been taught in J-schools for years, as well as in newsrooms.

The newspaper business is shrinking, but it's not going away anytime soon. The fact is, more people than ever are reading newspaper's content, when you combine the print and digital audience. Newspapers' struggles have nothing to do with a vanishing market for their content, or blogs providing the same content for free.
Newspapers' struggles are primarily the result of:
1. Classified advertising, long a cash cow for newspapers, is dead.
2. Display advertising has shrunk badly as advertisers try to spread their budgets across a seemingly ever-increasing number of platforms. The major advertisers continue to spend money with newspapers, just less of it.
3. The inability of newspapers to monetize their digital content. This might be because of a lack of innovation or it might be a structural issue that they'll never be able to overcome. I will say that there was a time when it was said people wouldn't oay for music or movies online when they can get it for free, but then along came iTunes and Netflix. There are challenges news providers would have to overcome that the music and film industries didn't have to, but that's likely what it's going to take to monetize the digital product.
4. Loss of readership, though harmful, is the least of newspapers' problems. Remember, circulation and readership are not synonymous.

[WI inferiority Complexes]

+1000000.  I've subscribed 7 days a week 20+ years.  Each year they cut more and more content out, and I feel like a sucker.

I get the Chicago Sun-Times every morning.  Same issues with that paper.

[Lennys Tap]

Interesting topic other than Mike's (MU82) need to interject politics (which is, in and of itself, Scoop's very own version of "Fake News"). Ironic

Carry on.
.

[GGGG]

Data-based journalism has been taught in J-schools for years, as well as in newsrooms.

The newspaper business is shrinking, but it's not going away anytime soon. The fact is, more people than ever are reading newspaper's content, when you combine the print and digital audience. Newspapers' struggles have nothing to do with a vanishing market for their content, or blogs providing the same content for free.
Newspapers' struggles are primarily the result of:
1. Classified advertising, long a cash cow for newspapers, is dead.
2. Display advertising has shrunk badly as advertisers try to spread their budgets across a seemingly ever-increasing number of platforms. The major advertisers continue to spend money with newspapers, just less of it.
3. The inability of newspapers to monetize their digital content. This might be because of a lack of innovation or it might be a structural issue that they'll never be able to overcome. I will say that there was a time when it was said people wouldn't oay for music or movies online when they can get it for free, but then along came iTunes and Netflix. There are challenges news providers would have to overcome that the music and film industries didn't have to, but that's likely what it's going to take to monetize the digital product.
4. Loss of readership, though harmful, is the least of newspapers' problems. Remember, circulation and readership are not synonymous.

With regards to #3 though, there are significant differences.  For instance, if I want to buy "Gimme Shelter" by the Stones, there really isn't a alternative free replacement for that song. 

However if I want to read a good article on how the Democrats screwed up the 2016 election, I can find all sorts of articles that talk about that.  And there are plenty of free ones out there.

[Spotcheck Billy]

With regards to #3 though, there are significant differences.  For instance, if I want to buy "Gimme Shelter" by the Stones, there really isn't a alternative free replacement for that song.

However if I want to read a good article on how the Democrats screwed up the 2016 election, I can find all sorts of articles that talk about that.  And there are plenty of free ones out there.

Sure there is - maybe not technically legal but I suppose neither is my reading of JSOnline via InPrivate browsing

[Pakuni]

With regards to #3 though, there are significant differences.  For instance, if I want to buy "Gimme Shelter" by the Stones, there really isn't a alternative free replacement for that song. 

However if I want to read a good article on how the Democrats screwed up the 2016 election, I can find all sorts of articles that talk about that.  And there are plenty of free ones out there.

Yes, and that's among the challenges to which I referred. News providers might have to form something akin to the RIAA or MPAA and agree to monetize their content together via a platform similar to iTunes, Google Play, etc.
My thought has always been rather than pushing monthly/yearly online subscriptions, they should charge micro amounts per click - like 5-10 cents an article. It's so tiny that I don't think it would be a barrier to most consumers and, as we've seen with other content, people are willing to pay rather if the platform is user friendly and cheap. It wouldn't provide a huge amount of revenue for newspapers, but it's decent and better than the nothing they're getting today.
Of course, I'm sure I've oversimplified an incredibly complex proposition - and for all I know it would violate antitrust laws. But it's going to take something truly extraordinary and innovative.

[PBRme]

Sure there is - maybe not technically legal but I suppose neither is my reading of JSOnline via InPrivate browsing

Wow digital only subscription is $29.00 a year or $0.56 week.  Guess whoever said that people would be willing to pay 5 or ten cents an article was wrong.

[MU82]

Are you suggesting prior to the last year they weren't doing their jobs? On hiatus? Not interested?

Not at all. I'm saying that "all things Trump" has energized the top newspapers simply because more readers are buying subscriptions, both print and online. The Times did great work on important subjects in 2014 and 2015, too, but not as many people care about famine in Somalia.

Despite Lenny's claim, nothing I said was fake. There is nuance - print ad revenue continues to decline, and I wish that weren't the case. Also, the Trump bump has not been as noticeable at papers such as the JS, the Charlotte Observer and smaller publications, especially as a money-making venture.

Still, more people than ever are reading major publications such as the WSJ, Times, Post, Globe, etc. And for a patriotic former journalist who realizes the importance of the industry, I view that as good news. Unlike many of the so-called president's own ventures, none of those "failing" newspapers is going bankrupt.

I used to call the Charlotte Observer every year at renewal time, trying to negotiate a better deal. And I usually was successful. In 2013, I threatened to cancel, and when they wouldn't negotiate I did cancel ... but when they called a few weeks later with a deal and begged me to return, I did. However, I no longer do that. Even though the newspaper is a shell of what it was even in 2010, when we moved to Charlotte, I have come to look at my subscription almost as a charitable donation. I also send an annual "gift" to my area's weekly free newspaper (which covers local politics and HS sports).

It's kind of along the lines of what John Oliver advocated - although I made the decision a couple of years before he did his very important, impressive piece.

So I put my money where my mouth is. We need newspapers. Very few other news sources actually investigate anything. Some politicians, especially a certain orange-hued ignoramus, portray the free press as an "enemy" because it IS an enemy of corruption and deceit. Nobody likes being exposed as a charlatan and a thief.

[Tugg Speedman]

Yes, and that's among the challenges to which I referred. News providers might have to form something akin to the RIAA or MPAA and agree to monetize their content together via a platform similar to iTunes, Google Play, etc.
My thought has always been rather than pushing monthly/yearly online subscriptions, they should charge micro amounts per click - like 5-10 cents an article. It's so tiny that I don't think it would be a barrier to most consumers and, as we've seen with other content, people are willing to pay rather if the platform is user friendly and cheap. It wouldn't provide a huge amount of revenue for newspapers, but it's decent and better than the nothing they're getting today.
Of course, I'm sure I've oversimplified an incredibly complex proposition - and for all I know it would violate antitrust laws. But it's going to take something truly extraordinary and innovative.

I thought that credit cards cannot handle this (yet).  That is many/frequent payments of under 5 cents.  Credit Card fees are also problematic, not sure they can go three or four decimal places (sub-penny) to get paid.  Have to wait for bitcoin to go mainstream for this to happen.

So to do this now you would have open an account and deposit funds and run your balance down, similar to your EZ-Pass.  At that point, it becomes more work than a regular subscription model.

[dgies9156]

Data-based journalism has been taught in J-schools for years, as well as in newsrooms.

The newspaper business is shrinking, but it's not going away anytime soon. The fact is, more people than ever are reading newspaper's content, when you combine the print and digital audience. Newspapers' struggles have nothing to do with a vanishing market for their content, or blogs providing the same content for free.
Newspapers' struggles are primarily the result of:
1. Classified advertising, long a cash cow for newspapers, is dead.
2. Display advertising has shrunk badly as advertisers try to spread their budgets across a seemingly ever-increasing number of platforms. The major advertisers continue to spend money with newspapers, just less of it.
3. The inability of newspapers to monetize their digital content. This might be because of a lack of innovation or it might be a structural issue that they'll never be able to overcome. I will say that there was a time when it was said people wouldn't oay for music or movies online when they can get it for free, but then along came iTunes and Netflix. There are challenges news providers would have to overcome that the music and film industries didn't have to, but that's likely what it's going to take to monetize the digital product.
4. Loss of readership, though harmful, is the least of newspapers' problems. Remember, circulation and readership are not synonymous.

Full disclosure -- I'm a MU Journalism grad who saw the writing on the wall in the 1980s and obtain a degree where the knowledge gained would pay the bills. I've got an MBA and went into financial services advisory.

The old saying in newspapers was that circulation paid the cost of delivery, classified kept the lights on and display ads bought the publisher's yacht. Pakuni is right about the economics, except for newspapers in small markets, where the internet delivers too large an audience at too high a price top be viable.

As to the J-S, I grew up on Gannett in Nashville. It takes a strong publisher, like the late John Siegenthalter, to stand up to them and incorporate what works but not be afraid to tell them to go wrap fish. In Milwaukee, the J-S still has some excellent reporting from time to time, but the bread-and-butter stuff is so formulaic to be nauseating. The J-S at times used to be so Wisconsin "rah-rah" that if it happened outside Wisconsin, it didn't matter. But it was a far better newspaper then than it is today.

The Chicago Tribune, compared to what it once was, is an embarrassment.

I bought the $9.99 a year access package last week so I could get access to Packers and Marquette coverage. I also obtained access to the Tennessean in Nashville and the TC Palm, which covers the Treasure Coast of Florida. That's how desperate these folks are!

[Pakuni]

I thought that credit cards cannot handle this (yet).  That is many/frequent payments of under 5 cents.  Credit Card fees are also problematic, not sure they can go three or four decimal places (sub-penny) to get paid.  Have to wait for bitcoin to go mainstream for this to happen.

I've had a PACER account linked to a credit card for years. It used to charge 8 cents a page. Now it's 10 cents. It bills quarterly, so it avoids many/frequent micro charges on the card. Don't see why this couldn't be done the same way.

So to do this now you would have open an account and deposit funds and run your balance down, similar to your EZ-Pass.  At that point, it becomes more work than a regular subscription model.

Yes, you'd have to open an account and put in your card. That's not at all different than the current subscription model.

[🏀]

I agree with this analysis

[mu_hilltopper]

I have come to look at my subscription almost as a charitable donation.

We need newspapers. Very few other news sources actually investigate anything.

So much this.

[Eldon]

With regards to #3 though, there are significant differences.  For instance, if I want to buy "Gimme Shelter" by the Stones, there really isn't a alternative free replacement for that song. 

However if I want to read a good article on how the Democrats screwed up the 2016 election, I can find all sorts of articles that talk about that. And there are plenty of free ones out there.

Often very good, and usually with zero ads.

I get the sense that many articles are written and then freely disseminated because it boosts the author's reputation.  Someone writes a bunch of articles for free, puts them online, and gradually develops a credible reputation.

There's a couple of reasons why reputation is important.  One of course is pride, e.g., seeing the clicks increase, being cited, etc.  The other reason is that these free articles serve as an audition.  You write good articles for free.  You get cited a lot.  Someone hires you.

One of the beauties of the internet is that it has decentralized the dispersion of information, thereby reducing the cost of acquiring a reputation for aspiring journalists.

Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6870/full/415424a.html

[Jockey]

I maintain the Internet didn't kill newspapers, it killed their ad revenues.

You forget the 1st rule of everything - it's always about the money.

If the internet killed their ad revenues - then the internet is killing newspapers.

But the orange creep who hates the media is doing his best to unwittingly revive the industry.

[Dr. Blackheart]

You forget the 1st rule of everything - it's always about the money.

If the internet killed their ad revenues - then the internet is killing newspapers.

Which is my point. Newspapers tried to monetize content when they should have monetized advertising. Content draws an audience, advertisers pay for reach. Newspapers thought they were the ad delivery form when they weren't/aren't.

ESPN's problem is no different, nor were Motorola's. Nor BetaMax or IBM PCs. The technology form changed and they were on the wrong end. Reach hasn't gone away. The forms change constantly and so do markets. Businesses who move with reach, win. See Apple, Google, Amazon.

Say what you may, but The Donald knows that too.

[B. McBannerson]

Not at all. I'm saying that "all things Trump" has energized the top newspapers simply because more readers are buying subscriptions, both print and online. The Times did great work on important subjects in 2014 and 2015, too, but not as many people care about famine in Somalia.

And I'm saying there are those that will say "all things Obama" energized newspapers in a different way, to push adoring stories and not punish.  Do you think the media tilts one way or another?  The public has a viewpoint on this and what stories are pursued or published may help to create that perception.  It is as if after a decade or so, journalists decided to be journalists again, but where were they prior?

[PBRme]

And I'm saying there are those that will say "all things Obama" energized newspapers in a different way, to push adoring stories and not punish.  Do you think the media tilts one way or another?  The public has a viewpoint on this and what stories are pursued or published may help to create that perception.  It is as if after a decade or so, journalists decided to be journalists again, but where were they prior?

Lap Dogs?

[MU82]

And I'm saying there are those that will say "all things Obama" energized newspapers in a different way, to push adoring stories and not punish.  Do you think the media tilts one way or another?  The public has a viewpoint on this and what stories are pursued or published may help to create that perception.  It is as if after a decade or so, journalists decided to be journalists again, but where were they prior?

The point was that subscriptions have gone up in the last year, and that largely has been the Orange Syndrome.

I mentioned a few newspapers. Did the WSJ fawn over Obama, too? Did you see the way the Times went after Hillary (and Bill)?

Yes, in general, the newspapers tilt left. I have "admitted" that many times. That's a whole 'nother subject, one that would get even more political than this one has.

[dgies9156]

Newspapers are dying for the same reason domestic passenger railroad died (and I worked in both in my career). Technology outstripped the newspaper's ability to deliver timely content in a user-friendly environment. Few newspapers have figured out how to effectively use the internet.

Though I think many media outlets have lost the objectivity and focus that the professors in the College of Journalism pushed in the 1970s, this is not the reason newspapers died. Rather it comes down to raids on advertising by alternative media and the inability of publishers to spend capital and readers to fully appreciate true investigative journalism/

In Chicago, our local NBC affiliate at 6 p.m., and 10 p.m. has figured it out. Their solution is to find an inoffensive set of anchors (yes, that's you, Lovely Allison), run 10 minutes of public safety news in a 14 minute news hole, have lots of flashing lights, great videos and young, appealing reporters babble about absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter that the news has absolutely no effect on the day-to-day lives of the vast majority of its consumers and it does not matter that there is no real effort to get underneath a problem and promulgate solutions. It's simple journalistic hard candy that makes a viewer almost feel guilty for watching.

To its credit, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel occasionally breaks out of its USA Today corporate mandates and writes about real issues. Their reporting on issues related to the Great Lakes is Pulitzer material. They've done a nice job recently characterizing a third grade class from 1978 and the impact of Milwaukee's urban changes on this class. But a lot of their crap is largely journalistic junk food.

The Chicago Tribune is now a paper that looks more like a circa 1990 Quad City Times than it does the preeminent newspaper in the Midwest. It's really sad what has happened there.

[Jockey]

Newspapers are dying for the same reason domestic passenger railroad died (and I worked in both in my career). Technology outstripped the newspaper's ability to deliver timely content in a user-friendly environment. Few newspapers have figured out how to effectively use the internet.

Very simply put, you couldn't be any more right.

The only reason to buy a newspaper now is for local coverage. You can find better national and world coverage for free online.

[MU82]

One major reason I like reading a newspaper is it organizes the news for me. I sit at breakfast and I read page after page. There is an order to things - national news, local news, business news, op-ed, sports, entertainment, etc. Plus, there will be an article on page 5 or page 15 about something I didn't even know I had interest in until I read it.

I am a consumer of news online, too, of course. But it's all so haphazard there. I'll click on a link, which will lead me to a dozen other links and then more links. I get lost in Linkdom and most of it is crap.

Disclosure: I am both old and old-fashioned. Plus, I'm a former newspaper hack myself, so there is definite bias.

[Tugg Speedman]

Very simply put, you couldn't be any more right.

The only reason to buy a newspaper now is for local coverage. You can find better national and world coverage for free online.

Agreed


When the internet was invented, publishers and editors should have been over the moon with excitement.  It represented a chance to dramatically cut costs of converting all those dead trees into the morning edition and all the effort to get it on your driveway by 5 AM.  That would allow them to spend these savings on huge increases in content (hire more reporters!)

The newspaper industry was in a position to invent social media but their entrenched thinking prevented them from seeing it and it took others to invent it and took their business away.  Ditto taxis, they should have invented Uber but could not see it.  Hotels should have invented Airbnb, Sears and other mall retailers should have invented Amazon, and on and on and on.

[dgies9156]

Agreed


When the internet was invented, publishers and editors should have been over the moon with excitement.  It represented a chance to dramatically cut costs of converting all those dead trees into the morning edition and all the effort to get it on your driveway by 5 AM.  That would allow them to spend these savings on huge increases in content (hire more reporters!)

The newspaper industry was in a position to invent social media but their entrenched thinking prevented them from seeing it and it took others to invent it and took their business away.  Ditto taxis, they should have invented Uber but could not see it.  Hotels should have invented Airbnb, Sears and other mall retailers should have invented Amazon, and on and on and on.

Not really.

Newspapers flourished because of a very large barrier to entry -- the capital cost associated with acquiring a printing press, building a subscriber and advertising base and physically delivering a publication from the point of publication to your front door. While the internet made it possible to have a 24 hour newspaper, it also made it possible for everyone from bloggers to legitimate news organizations to compete for my attention and my business. Publishers knew that from the get-go and struggled once the barriers to entry made it possible for anyone with a pen to be a news organization.

For example, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today, there really were not national publications. If I wanted to read the Tennessean or the Journal-Sentinel in Chicago, generally I had to order the newspaper and wait two to three days for it to show up in my mailbox. Now, all I have to do is click on a website. Plus, everything from Politico to Slate to Fox News is available to me. And Joe the Blogger who has a druid bent and saves trees can become a news source.

Same with television stations. The barriers to entry were ever more significant. You had an FCC license, a broadcast facility, transmission tower, programming (including a network affiliation) and the goodwill associated with an advertiser base. The capital costs were huge. Now, you can podcast a video on the internet and Bob and Barbie can do the 6 p.m., news naked if they want to.

I had in college (full disclosure: a summer class at a UW-System campus) where a professor asked who was entitled to be considered a newsperson. The answer under the 1st Amendment was everyone. He asked, "who appointed the journalists the fourth estate" in one class and posed the question about the morality of one or more persons having that much unchecked power. My answer should have been, "the publisher's capital appointed us to the fourth estate... and we will exist as long as we make money for the publisher." Well, those days are gone.

As to retail and hotels, long ago both invented their version of the internet. Sears, for example, pioneered mail order. That was their bread and butter for a couple of generations. Sears isn't in trouble because of Amazon. Rather, they're in trouble because of Walmart. Amazon is taking a bite out of Walmart, no doubt. But there always will be a need for brick and mortar. It's how you blend traditional and online that counts.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not really.

Newspapers flourished because of a very large barrier to entry -- the capital cost associated with acquiring a printing press, building a subscriber and advertising base and physically delivering a publication from the point of publication to your front door. While the internet made it possible to have a 24 hour newspaper, it also made it possible for everyone from bloggers to legitimate news organizations to compete for my attention and my business. Publishers knew that from the get-go and struggled once the barriers to entry made it possible for anyone with a pen to be a news organization.

For example, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today, there really were not national publications. If I wanted to read the Tennessean or the Journal-Sentinel in Chicago, generally I had to order the newspaper and wait two to three days for it to show up in my mailbox. Now, all I have to do is click on a website. Plus, everything from Politico to Slate to Fox News is available to me. And Joe the Blogger who has a druid bent and saves trees can become a news source.

Same with television stations. The barriers to entry were ever more significant. You had an FCC license, a broadcast facility, transmission tower, programming (including a network affiliation) and the goodwill associated with an advertiser base. The capital costs were huge. Now, you can podcast a video on the internet and Bob and Barbie can do the 6 p.m., news naked if they want to.

I had in college (full disclosure: a summer class at a UW-System campus) where a professor asked who was entitled to be considered a newsperson. The answer under the 1st Amendment was everyone. He asked, "who appointed the journalists the fourth estate" in one class and posed the question about the morality of one or more persons having that much unchecked power. My answer should have been, "the publisher's capital appointed us to the fourth estate... and we will exist as long as we make money for the publisher." Well, those days are gone.

As to retail and hotels, long ago both invented their version of the internet. Sears, for example, pioneered mail order. That was their bread and butter for a couple of generations. Sears isn't in trouble because of Amazon. Rather, they're in trouble because of Walmart. Amazon is taking a bite out of Walmart, no doubt. But there always will be a need for brick and mortar. It's how you blend traditional and online that counts.

With all due respect, your response is a perfect illustration of why "legacy" companies fail to adapt.

Newspapers flourished because of a very large barrier to entry -- the capital cost associated with acquiring a printing press, building a subscriber and advertising base and physically delivering a publication from the point of publication to your front door. While the internet made it possible to have a 24 hour newspaper, it also made it possible for everyone from bloggers to legitimate news organizations to compete for my attention and my business. Publishers knew that from the get-go and struggled once the barriers to entry made it possible for anyone with a pen to be a news organization.

Newspapers are in the content creation and content delivery business.  Yes for about a hundred years your post above was how the content was best delivered.

About 1995 they should have started to recognise that an entirely new way to deliver content was coming ... it was called the internet.  Newspapers should have lead in the remaking of their businesses to incorporate these new methods.  They should have invented Facebook and Google.  Instead, they got "stuck" in the "printing press" culture, forgetting they were the original information technology business and their "wealth" and business was transferred to the tech companies like Facebook and Google and they get left in the station without a ride.

Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Microsoft and Google are "platform" companies (my term).  They understand how technology is rendering business models obsolete and move in with the new model and take that business away from legacy companies. 

And it is not just them.  Uber is doing this to taxis (another thread on this) and Tesla is doing to the big 3 automakers.  Amazon is doing it brick & Mortar.  Walmart/Sears/Brick & Mortar failed to understand their business was "goods delivery" and instead though they were in the "real estate" business so they were incapable of recognising the new way to deliver goods.  Walmart should have invented Amazon.  Their biggest failure is they did not.  Now Bezos is worth over $70 billion and most brick & mortar CEOs are just trying to survive.

What needs to be done is a complete re-think of what your business is.  Newspapers are "content creators and delivery companies.  Retailing is "goods creation and delivery."  Then they need to figure out the most effective way to do that and shed the old inefficient way.  Instead, they get stuck in their legacy business and get passed by.

The fear is we are all going to fall into this trap, or already have.

[4everwarriors]

Wonder if da newpapers and passenger railroads will file a class action 'gainst dgies? You know, for draggin' dem down and such, hey?

[dgies9156]

With all due respect, your response is a perfect illustration of why "legacy" companies fail to adapt.

Newspapers flourished because of a very large barrier to entry -- the capital cost associated with acquiring a printing press, building a subscriber and advertising base and physically delivering a publication from the point of publication to your front door. While the internet made it possible to have a 24 hour newspaper, it also made it possible for everyone from bloggers to legitimate news organizations to compete for my attention and my business. Publishers knew that from the get-go and struggled once the barriers to entry made it possible for anyone with a pen to be a news organization.

Newspapers are in the content creation and content delivery business.  Yes for about a hundred years your post above was how the content was best delivered.

About 1995 they should have started to recognise that an entirely new way to deliver content was coming ... it was called the internet.  Newspapers should have lead in the remaking of their businesses to incorporate these new methods.  They should have invented Facebook and Google.  Instead, they got "stuck" in the "printing press" culture, forgetting they were the original information technology business and their "wealth" and business was transferred to the tech companies like Facebook and Google and they get left in the station without a ride.

Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Microsoft and Google are "platform" companies (my term).  They understand how technology is rendering business models obsolete and move in with the new model and take that business away from legacy companies. 

And it is not just them.  Uber is doing this to taxis (another thread on this) and Tesla is doing to the big 3 automakers.  Amazon is doing it brick & Mortar.  Walmart/Sears/Brick & Mortar failed to understand their business was "goods delivery" and instead though they were in the "real estate" business so they were incapable of recognising the new way to deliver goods.  Walmart should have invented Amazon.  Their biggest failure is they did not.  Now Bezos is worth over $70 billion and most brick & mortar CEOs are just trying to survive.

What needs to be done is a complete re-think of what your business is.  Newspapers are "content creators and delivery companies.  Retailing is "goods creation and delivery."  Then they need to figure out the most effective way to do that and shed the old inefficient way.  Instead, they get stuck in their legacy business and get passed by.

The fear is we are all going to fall into this trap, or already have.

Jig,

Respectfully, the problem with your theory is that the market is inelastic when it comes to content quality. It doesn't care.

The Chicago Tribune could have adopted an internet paywall delivery approach in 1997 and it would not have mattered. When Bob and Barbie are doing the news in the buff, or a segment of the market weighs Don the Druid on par with the Tribune --  and Don the Druid is free -- you ain't buying the Tribune. Having reporters around the world, a national sports desk on par with comparatively few, a world class editorial office and outstanding features doesn't have the value it once did.

TV in Chicago figured this out a long time ago. The stations that had Walter Jacobson and Bill Kurtis or Ron Majers and Carol Marin now have lots of cop news, traffic accidents, fires, floods, tornadoes etc. Stuff that looks great on high definition television but would be difficult to replicate on a computer screen. And when you see reporters and anchors, most women are clothed in wardrobes that only marginally maintain modesty.

You can talk about content all you want, but the content newspapers deliver are too often free on the internet. The old saying of the Houston Chronicle, "Written and edited to merit your confidence," is so far in the past to be almost quaint.

[Tugg Speedman]

Jig,

Respectfully, the problem with your theory is that the market is inelastic when it comes to content quality. It doesn't care.

The Chicago Tribune could have adopted an internet paywall delivery approach in 1997 and it would not have mattered. When Bob and Barbie are doing the news in the buff, or a segment of the market weighs Don the Druid on par with the Tribune --  and Don the Druid is free -- you ain't buying the Tribune. Having reporters around the world, a national sports desk on par with comparatively few, a world class editorial office and outstanding features doesn't have the value it once did.

TV in Chicago figured this out a long time ago. The stations that had Walter Jacobson and Bill Kurtis or Ron Majers and Carol Marin now have lots of cop news, traffic accidents, fires, floods, tornadoes etc. Stuff that looks great on high definition television but would be difficult to replicate on a computer screen. And when you see reporters and anchors, most women are clothed in wardrobes that only marginally maintain modesty.

You can talk about content all you want, but the content newspapers deliver are too often free on the internet. The old saying of the Houston Chronicle, "Written and edited to merit your confidence," is so far in the past to be almost quaint.

How does Drudge make $50k a day, every day for years to the point he is nearly a billionaire?

https://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-the-Drudge-Report-generate-in-a-day

http://www.businessinsider.com/drudge-report-is-worth-2012-10

All the guy does is repackage links and that is a billion dollar business?

Newspapers should be Drudge times 20 (or more).

Or ... what do you pay for Facebook?  Answer: nothing.  If so, how are they able to generate $40 billion of revenues this year.  Why can't newspapers do this?

These are examples of the biggest problem in business today ... people with experience that leads them to believe "you cannot do it that way."  Then a couple of millennials with a website and become worth more than the entire newspaper industry.

All the rules have changed.  Fire everyone with experience over 30.  They just get in the way!!!

[mu_hilltopper]

Those are good questions .. made me think.   

I imagine the reason Drudge has more pageviews than the JS Online is because Drudge's audience potential is 350 million people (maybe more, globally.)

JSOnline is 2, maybe 3m, and that's for the ~20th largest metro area in the country.

[dgies9156]

How does Drudge make $50k a day, every day for years to the point he is nearly a billionaire?
Newspapers should be Drudge times 20 (or more).

Matt Drudge is as much a journalist as I am a nuclear physicist.

He's a hack. He's not written and edited to merit confidence. Under the best of circumstances, he is a modern day Drew Pearson who uses technology instead of newsprint to reach readers.

Matt Drudge has no idea who Mike Madigan is or why he has destroyed the State of Illinois' economy. He doesn't cover the crime problem in Chicago, music scene in Nashville, commerce in Atlanta, arts in Birmingham, traffic problems in Los Angeles or life as a gay person in San Francisco. That's the mainstream media.

You want 20 Matt Drudges? Then you better be prepared for the limitations that imposes on your ability as a citizen to understand what is happening in your community, with your government and in the economy. Oh, and that may explain why most Millennials don't have a clue as to the difference between fact and opinion. It also may explain why we had the worst choice for President in any year since the un-indicted co-conspiritor ran for president.

[Tugg Speedman]

Matt Drudge is as much a journalist as I am a nuclear physicist.

He's a hack. He's not written and edited to merit confidence. Under the best of circumstances, he is a modern day Drew Pearson who uses technology instead of newsprint to reach readers.

Matt Drudge has no idea who Mike Madigan is or why he has destroyed the State of Illinois' economy. He doesn't cover the crime problem in Chicago, music scene in Nashville, commerce in Atlanta, arts in Birmingham, traffic problems in Los Angeles or life as a gay person in San Francisco. That's the mainstream media.

You want 20 Matt Drudges? Then you better be prepared for the limitations that imposes on your ability as a citizen to understand what is happening in your community, with your government and in the economy. Oh, and that may explain why most Millennials don't have a clue as to the difference between fact and opinion. It also may explain why we had the worst choice for President in any year since the un-indicted co-conspiritor ran for president.

You missed my point.

Drudge is worth tons of money and all he does is aggregate newspaper links.

So why do the businesses that actually make the context, newspapers, get crumbs and a guy that simply aggregates links on a page makes Master of the Universe money?  The fact that Drudge gets a billion page views a month (seriously!) says the content has tremendous value.  But the newspapers are so bad at understanding the medium that they are giving their money away to a middle-man like Drudge. The reason that are so bad is they do not understand the actual business they are in.  They think it has something to do with dead trees.  It really does not.  They are content creators and they deliver it in the most efficient way possible.

Ditto the want ads.  Monster, Zip, LinkedIn all saw the true value of want ads which newspaper never understood.

Ditto the personal ads, Facebook saw the value in them.

The original information technology, newspapers, were always sitting on a dominate goldmine of information.  And they have allowed others to get rich off their work.

This is the problem with legacy companies.  They define their businesses in restrictive ways and that prevents them from seeing the potential in what they have.  Then someone comes along that "gets it" and takes it away from them.