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