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

xpost Point taken, but surely there was a time when there was at least a chance of making some cash? The Sunday Times used to be a cash cow for Murdoch, didn't it?

yeah. i reckon the sunday times still does make a profit (?)

xpost think the s-times was making a profit as recently as last year, suspect it will be back in the black as the economy picks up. telegraph made money in 08 as well.

re: local press, it's not dead and is often profitable. the mirror has been propped up by its regional business for years now. dunno why classified ads haven't moved online the way they did in the usa.

Most local newspaper publishers have been pretty appalling when it comes to creating websites that anyone would actually look at, might be the reason?

Our local paper seems to be thriving, unfortunately. It's hit on the winning formula of "The Past - wasn't it lovely! Modern life is rubbish"

(the fact that most people say "local paper" singular suggests how things have gone down. though it is surprising they even exist tbh.)

Most local newspaper publishers have been pretty appalling when it comes to creating websites that anyone would actually look at, might be the reason?

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 10:44 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i meant things like craigslist or i guess gumtree here. clearly people use them, but they haven't taken away the ad business of local papers in the way that they seem to have done in the states.

Ah right - I thought you meant US publishers seeing an upturn in their own online classified sales.

so, i picked the wrong day to rep for the financial viability of local newspapers. trinity mirror just closed three of them. :(

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/090922tmnorthwales.shtml

The Whitchurch Herald, meanwhile, has a paid-for circulation of 3,883 in a town with a population of just 8,944.

This is one of the papers being closed, presumably selling to 43% of the available marketplace would indicate that it plays/played a pretty major role in the local community? That's really sad.

The Ad Director of the Standard has just left to become Commercial Director of the Indy, which is a weird move all things considered.

Big fan of local media in theory, because noone else is keeping an eye on what local govt gets up to - but every time I see a story I know something about, it's teeth-clenchingly wrong

wasn't sure where to put this, so i'm putting it here. 1981 report on first attempts at getting the news online. feel a bit like sarah connor when she meets the guy who invented skynet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTn4FljUQ

Evening Standard goes free from Monday: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/942719/

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/942719/London-Evening-Standard-become-free-circulation-paper/

The Standard's Russian owner Alexander Lebedev said his intention to make the paper available to a wider audience was for it to function as a "deterrent against corruption".

lol

It's been pretty much free for a while now anyway. Anytime I've been heading home later than about 8 in the past I've seen the same guys that give out other freesheets, only wearing yellow t-shirts instead of purple.

It was only free after 8pm because no fucker bought it after then. And it probably works out cheaper to pay guys to hand them out rather than pulp or landfill the leftover copies.

And some quick sums show that all those 50p sales add up to £32mn a year - does doubling its income from advertising cover that? I'd guess so.

The most important subset of numbers are 155 and 5. They refer to £155, the worth of an average reader to a paid-for newspaper a year in 2008. It breaks down to £90 a year from purchase price and £65 from advertising. Annual revenue from newspaper online totals just £5.

Standard going freesheet is unbelievably stupid of them right now, surely? Although presumably this will kill the London Lite with a stroke though?

Unbelievably stupid if Lebedev has any interest in running the paper as a "business". Which it's pretty clear he doesn't, right?

(rookie qn: presumably ad rates are much lower in free papers?)

wouldn't they be higher, with the presumed higher readership figures of a free sheet?

my guess is that advertisers are as concerned with quality (wealth) of readers as much as with quantity.

Not if you are just turning to freesheet. Presumably they'll drop the ad rates as low as they can to draw advertisers.

xp

“There are certain facts you can't argue with,” says one senior executive. “If the recession lasts too long, we will run out of money.”

In much the same way that they would support an author jailed on trumped-up charges in a distant failed state, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and 50 other luminaries signed an open letter of support for the 218-year-old newspaper. At a subsequent public meeting in London, chaired by the comedian David Mitchell, 300 well-wishers included the actor Simon Callow, the broadcaster John Humphries and the film critic Barry Norman.

Wonder what a Venn diagram of this vs Roman Polanski campaigners looks like.

The end result:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/mozzer232/FATHER_TED_Down_with_this_sort_of_t.jpg

Not newspapers, but Conde Nast is closing Gourmet and Modern Bride.

this article is HILARIOUS

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

in the "hysterical laughter that becomes hysterical crying" sense

It's totally misleading, too: most of their readers get it for free w/cable subscription so of course nobody's going to pay for it. (Also, isn't Newsday shit? Hardly news that it's tough to sell rubbish)

so why bother trying to charge for it if "most of their readers get it for free"?

to get $$ iirc

my times is thinking about it too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21questions.html

The web site redesign and relaunch cost the Dolans $4 million, according to Mr. Jimenez. With those 35 people, they've grossed about $9,000.

so why bother trying to charge for it if "most of their readers get it for free"?
i'm sure there's a money deal in here somewhere: they'll be charging *somebody* for all these "free" subscriptions. Also "look, free access to our website (that's a $xx value, when you sign for x+y".

I mean, putting up the paywall isn't going to lose them any real money anyway. Drive-by web readers are worth bupkis in ad money terms.

Newsday was the only decent NY tabloid when they still published a city edition. I have been picking it up maybe 2x a week for the sports, but less often since street price went to $1.

lol

The Times and the Sunday Times are to start charging for content online in June.

Users will be charged £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription for access to both papers' websites, publisher News International has announced.

What I don't understand is what this means for people who buy the actual newspaper and then want to read the website. Pay twice?

£1? How much is the actual newspaper daily?

The Times and the Sunday Times are to start charging for content online in June

Shurely they're gonna have to generate some first?

who's shirley?

Think it's £1, but it's a long time since I last paid for a copy since there's always three copies lying around at work unread and because, hey, we have the internet.

Apparently they're expecting 60,000 people to pay each day. WTF?

Assume this is a ploy so's somebody can write a piece in July about why they only got 6 subscribers and how it's the BBC's fault.

Go to: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7076987.ece - read the comments and try to find the one reader who says she'll pay for website access.

Quality in-depth interviewing from Eamonn Holmes on that article.

Mrs Brooks added that News International’s two other titles, The Sun and The News of the World, would follow.

Oh man I only just read this bit.

suicide. it's not like news won't appear on the net faster elsewhere, and probably better reported.