You better be squeaky clean

[77ncaachamps]

So the bottomline is that newspapers make more money on newspaper print/display ads than they do on the internet----but with declining newspaper readership they have a harder time getting those big ad fees. They are between a rock and a hardplace right now!

Agreed that they're in a difficult situation. This is also in response to Chico's last post: ANYONE with a computer and an ISP can create a blog that can be so radical (left OR right OR middle) people catch on.

I spend my time only perusing the paper and not deliberately reading it front to back.

I spend MORE time searching for information, and THAT is where the newspapers CANNOT compete: the time it takes to dig up information and post it is so small that the traditional newspaper process reduces the effective timeliness of the information.

The dinosaur media that is losing money due to online readership to other venues realizes this and is offsetting it (a bit) by subscription to the archives. For true researchers, historians, et al, you have no choice but to pay directly to the newspaper or to a news media clearinghouse.

[Marquette84]

Actually, just the opposite is true. Newspaper web sites are growing in terms of "hits" every month as more and more people realize they're far more credible sources of news than everything else out there on the web.

First, let's put aside the obvious stretch of reason that only credibility that could drive "hits" to a newspaper web site.   

Lets also consider the fact that newspapers are losing share of internet traffic. 

Yeah, their "hits" are up--so are everyone elses.  Where to they stand relative to other sites--that's the real measure.

In January 2006, the page rank of the Chicago Tribune based on traffic was ranked in the top 1000 web sites, according to alexa.com

They slipped to 3,033 as of yesterday.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=chicagotribune.com

Results are similar for whatever newspaper you wish to use.

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

[mu_hilltopper]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

Absolutely, but the greater point is that these traditional media outlets are losing market share.  Thank God! 

[Marquette84]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

You're right, of course.

I was trying to illustrate using similar data on site visits that I could draw the exact opposite conclusion from the previous post, which suggested increased "hits" shows an increased sense of credibility. 

The bottom line is that increased traffic may or may not have anything to do with credibility.