Is there a thread for the rapid death of the newspaper industry?

headline headghgh in topless bar

"We Wgfgfgfg"

(It'll be on Have I got News for you, doubtless)

ah: "The error comes as journalists across Johnston Press mull group-wide strike action in protest against staffing levels and the introduction of the Atex production system.

"Press Gazette understands that Atex, which allows reporters to input stories directly on to page layouts, has been introduced across Johnston Press titles in the south of England."

http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/Includes/Images/BTJ/front-bed22.gif

fwiw

who do you believe? the bedford time and citizen's website or your own lying eyes?

http://imgur.com/xIC0G.png

News Sharter?

*creature harbours grudge against blodes

LOLLLLLL, blondes

"News Shower" is very Morris-esque.

It's actually the News Shopper, ahem, paper of record in Lewisham & Catford.

Have you noticed issues with crows?

It's only ever guns, crows and crack these days.

Don't forget the foxes. Animals be fighting back.

Crow update: http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8208903.CATFORD__Elderly_dancer_reveals_crow_attack_horror/

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/resources/images/1323867/

keen dancer and former actress, you say

she's no tipi hedren

She's Edna Lunt

from IMDB

Edna Lunt:
Letters of Service (2004) .... Dancing Patient

omg terrifying my gf is a blonde Lewisham/Catford jogger. I know someone who'll be getting a hard hat for her next birthday.

Heard magpies do this all the time in Australia, and that they have to wear special hats.... hang on a sec, this might be a dream...

No, it's not.

Erk, just read about the Mirror cutting a third of its staff. Dark times. Though I guess it's lost, what, half its readers during the past 10 or 15 years?

press gazette says a quarter of the staff of the mirror, the smirror and the people? made £70m profit last year as well per NUJ. what a bunch of cunts. newspapers shouldn't be plcs.

This was kind of worrying/a blow too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10278700.stm My friends who work for DC Thompson are based at the other site, but it doesn't bode well, I guess. Also not that many companies that still print their own magazines etc., I think.

The crow attack story really belongs in the "Stuff that looks like the Onion" thread

A STUNNED mum nearly choked on her favourite chocs - after she found one shaped like a WILLY.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01065/sna1523choc280_1065094a.jpg

Last night a Cadbury's spokesman said: "It appears some of the Nibbles have melted.

"We will of course offer a full refund if the consumer is unhappy."

Welcome
Our old website has been switched off: enjoy the new

Live at 9am: webchat with Gary Neville

Opinion
Soldiers must get same leniency as the IRA
Daniel Finkelstein

wait, I'm sorry, I'm only just learning about the chocolate genitals

"My two-and-a-half-year-old grandson eats these and I'd have been horrified if he'd found it."

BUT HE HAS REAL GENITALS

Two-and-a-half is a bit young to be learning about eating a bag of dicks tbf,

The Times loses half its traffic since introducing paywall

Still probably too early to judge, and impossible to know how that compares with their projections, but that looks like a pretty decent result to me, no?

Is there still advertising behind the paywall?

there were hardly any ads when i looked at it during the trial period. i presume they want that to change, because the subs revenue on its own is going to be pitiful.

I bought the Wall Street Journal a couple of times recently and got the impression that Murdoch has in fact changed it for the worse. I mean I haven't read it consistently in a few years, but I remember that I used to really like it outside of the editorial page. Today I was particularly put off by a cover story that seemed to be stealth-blaming the federal government for the BP disaster because BP "relied on" some 2004 government report that said that the effects of an oil spill wouldn't be as bad as this.

color me surprised

My sources say that not only is nobody subscribing to the website, but subscribers to [The Times] itself—who have free access to the site—are not going beyond the registration page. It’s an empty world.

"Times loses almost 90% of online readership
Less than three weeks after the Times paywall went up, data shows a massive decline in web traffic"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership

(linked to from http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/27/london-times)

looks like someone already pointed this out upthread

"london times" lol

well what rupert wants, rupert gets

on the other hand, advertising is fucked too:

“We have been so overtly dependent on advertising as the turbine that runs this place, and that is a very, very risky model as we emerge from the recession,” Condé CEO Chuck Townsend told The Times. “In a company like ours where 70 percent of our margins are generated on the advertising side, we must develop a much, much more effective financial relationship with the consumer.” That is, get money from the consumer instead of the advertiser.

Good luck.

interesting article about conde nast and news apps, and how they might be more attractive advertising platforms than the web - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/ipad_saves_wired/

The bind is pretty obvious - the more you charge -> the fewer subscribers you have -> the less you can make off advertising (unless your smaller subscriber base is especially worth targeting due to being loaded or some such)

im not an expert or anything but it strikes me that publications charging for their web advertising on a per-click basis are seriously undervaluing their ad space.

i've only just realized that it is impossible to click on an actual newspaper advertisement

therefore they should be free!

exactly

I don't know how much online advertising costs but it seems like it should be the same cost as print per reader/viewer PLUS a per click fee

i know all ads aren't like this, but i can't believe anyone actually clicks on something like, say, the little Google text ads they've started inserting at the bottom of YouTube videos

^ i'm sure there are surveys and all that proving me wrong, but this^

like, HOLY SHIT "Custom Profile Layouts"! man, just want I've always been looking for! (custom profile layout for **what**? and what the fuck does this have to do with Radiohead playing "High and Dry" on Jools Holland in the mid-90s?)

ok then the video ends and some audio starts up advertising American Military University

none of that has anything to do with Radiohead, and the chances that someone watching the same video I was watching would actually click on any of that shit is zero. if anything, I'll probably be more apt to just associate whatever brands pop up randomly with this stuff with spammy activity in general

the ads in the sidebar on my gmail- now these are pretty good, have used and will use again