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

(Never underestimate how quickly publishers will jump into bed with each other if the need arises.)

I should add that I think some kind of pay-to-visit model would be shockingly bad. I guess tiered content is the only way to do this ... ach, I keep forgetting I'm not meant to care about this any more.

The execs in charge of this are easily as fucking stupid as the ones in charge of the music industry. IE: why the fuck were they all buying up social networking sites and trying to build comment-audiences instead of buying/supplementing the sites that are stealing their bread? NC should have bought Gumtree, not MySpace.

non-profits don't necessarily need grants. plenty of newspapers have been turning profits while they were sacking journalists because of ownership models that demand not just profitability, but endless growth of profits. a non-profit paper could trundle along quite happily making a small surplus to be reinvested in the business.

the problem with paid online content is that it removes the connectivity - you can't share links with non-subscribers. and it hands a massive advantage to the bbc.

xpost stet massively otm

Paid online content is surely a dead duck. Outside financial services, has anything at all worked using this model? If Murdoch is now relying on it to save the industry, then that's bad news indeed.

I think newsgathering and reporting will eventually prove to be profitable on the Internet, once it has been massively consolidated.

just because it hasn't worked doesn't mean it can't. the biggest obstacle is getting people used to the idea of paying for content online. newspaper/magazine content specifically, since they already pay for other kinds of content (music, tv shows, porn, etc). the whole question obviously is how many will pay -- if the nyt, say, can get a million paid subscribers online, that might be enough to offset losing the other 19 million readers a month who read it online for free right now. if it can only get 250,000, that might not be enough. (i have no idea what the actual tipping-point number would be.) and there are ways around the link problem. you could allow links to a headline and first paragraph, e.g. you could also maintain a small free section of the site and rotate top stories through there, as a sort of loss leader. there's also the salon model of making nonsubscribers watch an ad to access any particular story.

The NY Times did try some kind of paid online content, didn't it? And then gave it up. As for Salon, I don't know if it turns a profit or not but its overheads would be utterly minuscule compared with the NY Times, since it doesn't have Baghdad bureaus and the like.

a non-profit paper could trundle along quite happily making a small surplus to be reinvested in the business

Oddly, there's a wee piece in this month's NUJ mag about this. Obviously, it's utterly uninformative and raises more questions than it answers, but you're right: it's not an unworkable model. However, right now it can only work for tiny buyouts and (hahahah) start-ups, natch.

the problem with paid online content is that it removes the connectivity - you can't share links with non-subscribers. and it hands a massive advantage to the bbc

Yes, I agree completely on both points. But the worst-case alternative is that everything else disappears completely, which gives the BBC a really quite spec-fucking-tacular advantage.

I think newsgathering and reporting will eventually prove to be profitable on the Internet, once it has been massively consolidated

Er, that "once ..." clause is a bit of a dealbreaker, no?

But the worst-case alternative is that everything else disappears completely, which gives the BBC a really quite spec-fucking-tacular advantage.
It'll become news for people who don't care about news, which it is just now anyway.

If large groups of journalists are going to be employed on nothing but journalism, I can't ever see how web publishing is going to fund it. Too much competition, no culture of charging.

It is time, though, for a newspaper to be set up not a 20% PROFIT model. Something like a John Lewis of newspapers, where they need to cover their costs and the rest is gravy that goes back into the newspaper.

Saw State of Play last night, btw. It's not as bad as reviews made out, and one they've got just about spot-on is the resentment/confusion about the web among hacks. There's a real undercurrent of "newspapers are about to die, sure they did a lot of shit but they also did the odd good thing". The film under the credits though -- which starts at the reporter's keyboard and goes on from the newsroom to film output, into platemaking, onto the press, through the binders, into the mailroom and out onto the trucks -- is incredibly poignant for nostalgics.

Which wasn't our audience, who mostly stomped out.

Er, that "once ..." clause is a bit of a dealbreaker, no?

I don't think massive consolidation is great, just inevitable. After all, it's the way everything has gone on the Internet - search engines, bookselling, encyclopedias etc etc - eventually one or two players end up with almost all the audience. I think we'll end up with the BBC plus a couple of other huge newsgathering businesses soaking up 80% of the audience, and then a teeming mass of small operators, mostly run benevolently, taking up the rest.

thing is that news doesn't really work when it's consolidated. It needs competition otherwise reporters can be lazy, and even the biggest orgs depend on the river of news that everybody contributes their little bit to.

(i don't mean it won't happen, just that if it does it's likely to heave)

It is time, though, for a newspaper to be set up not a 20% PROFIT model. Something like a John Lewis of newspapers, where they need to cover their costs and the rest is gravy that goes back into the newspaper.

― stet, Thursday, 7 May 2009 09:26 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Isn't this the scott trust?

Don't think the Scott Trust really exists as such any more, does it? It's now a limited company -- so has fiduciary duty and all the other excuses of rapacious capitalism to fall back on.

huh, did not know that had happened and slightly disappointed. Just read up on it. Balls to the lot of them.

Yeh, it wasn't the greatest day in GMG history, that one. Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing tidings!

The best they could come up with was Ltd. Did they even consider mutual or partnership options for longer than 30 seconds? What a bunch of cockfarmers? Fields of prize feathered beasts as far as the eye can see.

I think Murdoch might be right actually - and not just for newspaper websites. At some point soon the massive piles of cash that have been subsidising YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other sites that cost fuckloads and have no workable business model are going to run out and they're going to have to find a way to monetise them properly.

What's risky is being the first major publisher to make that jump. NewsCorp is probably better placed than others to do it due to being bigger, and I think SunOnline at least could find some way of including content people are prepared to pay for.

My gut feeling about this is 'too little too late' though. People should have thought about all of this before making pretty much everything on the internet free of charge. Especially as internet behaviour is so nomadic, there'll always be something else new to pick up the users that fall away.

i didn't know that about the scott trust either. apparently there was a fear of being hit with inheritance tax, lol irony:

The decision was taken because like all non-charitable trusts, the Scott Trust has a finite lifespan, unlike limited companies.

could they have made it a charity instead? they'd have to give up endorsing parties at elections, but who cares about that?

anyway, part of the problem is not the move to online news in itself, but that we're only halfway through the transition. revenues are down, but they're still paying huge costs for printing and distributing to a smaller audience. an all-online publication in the future may be much more viable: journalists are way cheaper than printworks. that may make competition easier too.

ps: read the other day that the huffington post employs 25 people just to moderate comments. so there will still be a future for subeditors.

so there will still be a future for subeditors

We're like cockroaches. We can survive anything. Even if we have to be "multi-platform content refacilitators", we'll still be there spilling soup down our cardigans and calling everything shit.

Moderating comments for a living would probably end up driving you insane, though

which starts at the reporter's keyboard and goes on from the newsroom to film output, into platemaking, onto the press, through the binders, into the mailroom and out onto the trucks

Yeah - straight from the reporter's keyboard to the printing press, it looked like. He even wrote the headline and made it fit without the need for WYSIWYG or even a galley view. What a pro!

Moderating comments for a living would probably end up driving you insane, though

I know a certain place where a rota for this involves people such as the news editor. What a fantastic use of resources.

I should add that I think some kind of pay-to-visit model would be shockingly bad

Oi. Wasn't it you who said the old place should charge for access to the current day's news?

Not having WYSIWYG would explain a lot about American headlines to me.

Still, aye, the fuckers could have had even just one soup-covered eyeshaded ol' moke in there somewhere. xp

There was a sign nearby marked "copy editors" but they all seemed to have gone home (quite right too - holding the front page for three hours, you're having a laugh ain't you?).

I know a certain place where a rota for this involves people such as the news editor. What a fantastic use of resources

Not any more :)

Oi. Wasn't it you who said the old place should charge for access to the current day's news?

Maybe! I reserve the right to be a capricious fuck, as always. If I did say that, I was wrong.

He even wrote the headline and made it fit without the need for WYSIWYG or even a galley view

In fairness: back in the hot-metal days, that was HOW IT WORKED. And it's funny: returning to do Saturday shifts on your alma mater, I find I can cast off almost perfectly in Poynter Roman -- in a way I certainly can't in fucking Din bastard Black.

they all seemed to have gone home

I assume, in this old-school fantasy, they were all in the pub?

Moderating comments for a living would probably end up driving you insane, though

Try subbing professional writers' copy for a living :)

I think there's a place for charge-for-today, but pay-per-view isn't it.

I was ace at casting off in Din by the end, so much so that I noticed they'd used the wrong-but-similar cutting for Atex because things that should have fit didn't.

Never managed it in Poynter, tho

That's because you were too busy writing

Grimly is a
horse's ass

in every headline box you could find.

Got that in print once, too.

Moderating comments for a living would probably end up driving you insane, though

Heh. Did this for nine months straight at a former company. One time I ended up hallucinating the main Outlook window in the blinds in my bathroom at 2am.

Got that in print once, too

I reduced 10 years of accumulated crap to a couple of boxes recently; safely at the bottom of one of them is that very scrap of newsprint. (How many copies did they run?)

Only about 1000, but good copy took forever on that press, so there's probably about 10,000 smeary copies in a mouldy shed somewhere.

Is there a thread for the rapid death of the newzzz...

sry

guys, it's ok, i'm at the university of missouri, and we know the answer is mandatory ipods

You guys are a bunch of print nerds and I love it.

European newspapers furious over Google's intention to sell ads on Google News

(as an above mentioned print nerd and editor-in-chief, this indeed likely will not help newspapers...)

Newspapers should all band together to block Google's spiders. Common interest and all that. Probably take too long to organize, though.

Yeh, that'd be a great idea. "What's going on?" "No fucking idea, these idiot newspapers are blocking Google. Let's look at the BBC instead."

(slaps forehead!) It never occured to me, but you're right! No one could possibly figure out how to visit the newspapers's own websites to read the news there.

But that's not what they do, are used to doing or will begin to do. Very few readers are loyal to a single newspaper website: the majority will click about indiscriminately in a sea of information, and Google is -- rather obviously -- a vital part of that. If you really think that de-indexing would suddenly have millions of readers tapping in the URL of their favourite blatt, you're living in dreamland, son.

Why do you think metadata is such a big deal? Why is the race to be first more important than the desire to be right? Believe me, as a working staff hack on a daily newspaper I wish you were right ... but you're miles off, I'm afraid.

Actually, thinking about this as I got off the bus and walked up to my door: I can envisage something like this actually happening, ie a small, misguided bunch of publishers taking their metaphorical ball home in a fit of pique. And that will be us totally an utterly fucking screwed.

It's a horrible situation but there ain't no simple, or even not-so-simple, fix.

The only reason Google News is a problem is it exposes newspapers to competition they've rarely had -- the local monopolies break down at that scale. The solution is exclusive stories, but they're expensive and papers have sacked most of the people who would write them.

Getting pissed off about the ads is fucking stupid; it's like complaining about the money newsagents make from cigs and sweets.

Google news is only a threat to shit PA-rehashing papers. For everyone else it drives traffic, which is what they claim to want.

It's a horrible situation but there ain't no simple, or even not-so-simple, fix.

That's basically what it is, yeah. But Google is gonna walk this, I'm sure.

xp

Stet, I do agree with you for the most part. Though people seem less and less keen on exclusive stories (if you don't read the paper that haas an exclusive story, or does some muckraking or investigative journalism, people will know about it when the press agencies or other (online) media copy it). I work for a regional newspaper and that makes it a bit more easy, I think. The connection between the newspaper and the reader is stronger. The 'big' (inter)national news can't be missed anymore today, not even if you tried. The 'smaller' news doesn't have that problem, at least, not as much yet.

Yeh, I don't mean exclusive in the sense of Big Scoop, just in the sense that "nobody else has it" -- yr competitors aren't going to steal the Googlejuice from you if you're the only one carrying the story about that cat who likes custard. Regionals definitely have it easier, here.

A desperate measure to arrest ad-revenue decline?

Row erupts over far-right group's newspaper ads