Printed newspapers - the countdown

[lionking]

Okay, I was on the receiving end of a beating in my thread about libraries having a short future, but surely non-digital newspapers are doomed.

The Age, the 165 year old quality Melbourne broadsheet I have devoured for decades, has announced that it is sacking 1900 staff, closing two printing plants, putting a paywall on its digital content and going tabloid. There is a parallel attempted takeover by one of the world's richest person, Gina Reinholt, who wants to take the paper down the Fox News pathway, but I think the paper version of the Age won't last long whoever runs it. It would just die sooner if Gina takes control.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/fairfax-to-cut-1900-staff/story-fnbzs1v0-1226398687776

So pundits, I think there will be no major printed newspapers in the world in 10 years. Maybe 5. What do you think, and what will the consequences of the disappearance of physical newspapers be (assuming it happens)?

[lionking]

Oops, I didn't mention that the even older Sydney Morning Herald is facing the same fate.

[Brainster]

When I first got the internet in 1993, I decided that to cover the cost monetarily I had to cut something out of my life, and it was the local newspaper. Nothing that has happened since then has caused me to change my mind. Indeed, I wonder how long local TV channels can survive, and quite possibly the major networks.

[geni]

Okay, I was on the receiving end of a beating in my thread about libraries having a short future, but surely non-digital newspapers are doomed.

The "non digital" clause is unnecessary. The various attempts to make money out of digial newspaper analogues haven't worked.


The Age, the 165 year old quality Melbourne broadsheet I have devoured for decades, has announced that it is sacking 1900 staff, closing two printing plants, putting a paywall on its digital content and going tabloid. There is a parallel attempted takeover by one of the world's richest person, Gina Reinholt, who wants to take the paper down the Fox News pathway, but I think the paper version of the Age won't last long whoever runs it. It would just die sooner if Gina takes control.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/fai...-1226398687776

So pundits, I think there will be no major printed newspapers in the world in 10 years. Maybe 5. What do you think, and what will the consequences of the disappearance of physical newspapers be (assuming it happens)?

Strickly speaking no. Things like the free metro do okey. They target people on trains where not everyone wants to haul around a bunch of electronics and even the trash that fills the metro can be better than nothing.

Others like say the daily mail have a lot of older readers who will still take more than ten years to die off.


Of course this assumes that any meaningful non state funded news gathering organisations last that long.

[lionking]

When I first got the internet in 1993, I decided that to cover the cost monetarily I had to cut something out of my life, and it was the local newspaper. Nothing that has happened since then has caused me to change my mind. Indeed, I wonder how long local TV channels can survive, and quite possibly the major networks.

Yes, with TV, a convergence with other media will occur soon. Personally I think TV will survive a lotlonger than papers.

[supaluminal]

I don't know that I would be as brave as to say none in 10 years, but the media landscape is definitely shifting, and where the equilibrium point is, neither I or anyone else knows. It won't be far off none though.

We appear to be rapidly moving towards a world with a few global-scale quality media outlets, and one of less reputable standard (I think most people will know who I'm talking about).

I think back to even 5-7 years ago, I read the paper edition of the SMH daily, and it was around then that I started reading online NY Times, The Guardian and the BBC. Now, they are arguably my main media sources for general news, along with ABC news for a more Australian focus.

All the Fairfax (The Age and SMH) and News Ltd websites serve up is tripe, and they lost me as a result. I can't see me paying for them unless the quality improves dramatically. I already pay for an electronic subscription to the NYTimes website, and for a local electronic daily (Crikey), so why would I pay to get the same **** I don't read on the Fairfax or News Ltd websites.

In short, I'm happy to pay for quality journalism, but how to pay for it is the question. I remember reading figures that subscriptions and the sale price aren't where the money is anyway, that's in advertising, and the internet has done even more damage to advertising incomes across the board. Fairfax's "Rivers of Gold" were their Saturday classifieds entries, and they're as good as gone, we have ways of doing that online now for much less.

I'll be watching with interest, and I do hope that a few quality media outlets can survive, the work of a functioning and critical media is too important to be left to the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

[supaluminal]

When I first got the internet in 1993, I decided that to cover the cost monetarily I had to cut something out of my life, and it was the local newspaper. Nothing that has happened since then has caused me to change my mind. Indeed, I wonder how long local TV channels can survive, and quite possibly the major networks.

With the additional fragmentation caused by digital broadcasting allowing extra channels (we've seen this in Australia, certainly) advertising revenues across the separate channels won't sum to what TV channels used to receive, the media landscape is becoming far more fragmented, which seriously dulls the effect of advertising. Which after all, is really what has driven the media for at least the last 50 years.

[Brainster]

Yes, with TV, a convergence with other media will occur soon. Personally I think TV will survive a lotlonger than papers.

If you mean that video will survive longer than print, I agree. But I think local TV is doomed (as it provided little other than the national PrimeTime TV and local news) and in the longer term I don't see how the national networks can survive; the production studios will soon see that it makes more sense to bring their shows directly to the consumers.

[lionking]

I don't know that I would be as brave as to say none in 10 years, but the media landscape is definitely shifting, and where the equilibrium point is, neither I or anyone else knows. It won't be far off none though.

We appear to be rapidly moving towards a world with a few global-scale quality media outlets, and one of less reputable standard (I think most people will know who I'm talking about).

I think back to even 5-7 years ago, I read the paper edition of the SMH daily, and it was around then that I started reading online NY Times, The Guardian and the BBC. Now, they are arguably my main media sources for general news, along with ABC news for a more Australian focus.

All the Fairfax (The Age and SMH) and News Ltd websites serve up is tripe, and they lost me as a result. I can't see me paying for them unless the quality improves dramatically. I already pay for an electronic subscription to the NYTimes website, and for a local electronic daily (Crikey), so why would I pay to get the same **** I don't read on the Fairfax or News Ltd websites.

In short, I'm happy to pay for quality journalism, but how to pay for it is the question. I remember reading figures that subscriptions and the sale price aren't where the money is anyway, that's in advertising, and the internet has done even more damage to advertising incomes across the board. Fairfax's "Rivers of Gold" were their Saturday classifieds entries, and they're as good as gone, we have ways of doing that online now for much less.

I'll be watching with interest, and I do hope that a few quality media outlets can survive, the work of a functioning and critical media is too important to be left to the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

Thanks superluminal. I was well aware of the disappearance of the "Rivers of Gold", and knew that the other divisions of the Age would not likely compensate for the loss. I'm still surprised at the speed of the decline.

I was an Age subscriber for years, and only stopped when the (free so far) iPad edition became available. I only buy the paper when I fly (as I do almost weekly) as you can't use digital devices on takeoff and landing.

I will subscribe to the digital Age, depending on price. Interesting you mention Crikey. I used to look at it daily before it required a subscription. I may have a look at it again.

[geni]

If you mean that video will survive longer than print, I agree. But I think local TV is doomed (as it provided little other than the national PrimeTime TV and local news) and in the longer term I don't see how the national networks can survive; the production studios will soon see that it makes more sense to bring their shows directly to the consumers.

Because TV makes a safer babysitter than the internet.

[Brainster]

With the additional fragmentation caused by digital broadcasting allowing extra channels (we've seen this in Australia, certainly) advertising revenues across the separate channels won't sum to what TV channels used to receive, the media landscape is becoming far more fragmented, which seriously dulls the effect of advertising. Which after all, is really what has driven the media for at least the last 50 years.

Some of this may not make sense to you personally (Australia vs USA), but I have been astounded by how quickly the networks seem to be recognizing the problems. In the US NBC allowed ESPN (owned by one of its principal rivals, ABC) to mostly co-broadcast the US Open Golf Tournament; they had a long lead-in to the actual tournament, broadcast much of the first two rounds and rebroadcast on tape delay the NBC coverage. A friend of mine wondered why and in retrospect I can see it; they knew that they can't control it for long, and so they might as well get the eyeballs now.

Another thing I noticed; CBSSports.com had a link to NBCSports video coverage of the US Open as well with a referrer tag that noted that they had sent people over to their nominal competitor.

My takeaway? The networks know they are no longer competing with each other. They are competing with the internet.

[Caper]

Has anyone else had the experience of seeing a newspaper article, you saw three times on the web the day before?

[lionking]

Brainster

The same thing is happening with our Australian Rules football broadcasts (rights recently sold for over $1billion). Free to air TV broadcasts are shown on pay TV with FTA commentators (and no ads). It now makes more sense that it is a combined effort against the Internet.

[supaluminal]

Thanks superluminal. I was well aware of the disappearance of the "Rivers of Gold", and knew that the other divisions of the Age would not likely compensate for the loss. I'm still surprised at the speed of the decline.

I was an Age subscriber for years, and only stopped when the (free so far) iPad edition became available. I only buy the paper when I fly (as I do almost weekly) as you can't use digital devices on takeoff and landing.

I will subscribe to the digital Age, depending on price. Interesting you mention Crikey. I used to look at it daily before it required a subscription. I may have a look at it again.

I think the last few years of screaming about digital subscriptions and falling circulation income have really hidden the true nature of the problem they are facing. The sale price of a newspaper has never covered their costs, and the internet has butchered advertising revenues. Unfortunately, like so many industries, it was easier to pretend that the falling revenues were cyclical, not structural, and the GFC really let them hide it for a couple of years. But the writing is definitely on the wall now.

The internet has a habit of invalidating business models without producing a clear new one. As a side note, I'm curious to see how some sectors of manufacturing will cope with the rise of cheap 3D printing.

Crikey is an interesting one. I originally ponied up for a subscription before the 2007 election, and I've been paying for it since, largely because it has a more political focus. They do a bit of media related stuff as well, and one of the things they've monitored is free newspaper giveaways. Turns out there's loads of 'em. And it's all about boosting circulation numbers in order to keep advertising revenues propped up.

[lionking]

Of course Gina Reinholt is laughing. The announcements resulted in a 7% increase in the Fairfax share price.

[NobbyNobbs]

Consequences? It'll be a lot harder to toilet train puppies and line the bottom of bird cages.

[Alan]

Gina Rinehart has been popping up everywhere in the news lately!

I know someone who writes Fairfax online content and I think he'll probably be one of the ones to lose a job. Videogame news. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/blogs/screenplay/split-screen-e3-hits-and-misses-20120614-20d9d.html

[Blackadder]

I have been interwebbing since 1994. Sure, I use it as much as anybody for news gathering. But nothing beats reading a paper newspaper with a cup of tea and a sandwich. News sites are good for quick facts, who won that match, did the greeks crash the euro, what's the weather tomorrow?

Newspapers are for longer stories. The quality newspapers will survive as there will always be a group of people who want to read them and pay for it. I will still be doing that in 2030.

[Eddie Dane]

There is another problem for the newspapers.
They are just repeating ANP and other press agencies' news, with a bit of commentary. (As do those expert journalists who are 'on the scene'in Gaza and Afghanistan)

Metro and such don't even bother to add the commentary.
They just add some human interest, an interview and some lifestyle articles.

You are paying these papers to add a bit of meaning and opinion and I'm sure you've noticed that there is plenty of that on the internet. I'd venture to say that there may be even more opinion than porn.

I heard that a recent study learned that most of the people willing to pay for news are investors who need to make decisions based in the information they get. So the Financial Times and such will be safe and will even be able to charge for their digital content.

[Eddie Dane]

I have been interwebbing since 1994. Sure, I use it as much as anybody for news gathering. But nothing beats reading a paper newspaper with a cup of tea and a sandwich. News sites are good for quick facts, who won that match, did the greeks crash the euro, what's the weather tomorrow?

Newspapers are for longer stories. The quality newspapers will survive as there will always be a group of people who want to read them and pay for it. I will still be doing that in 2030.

I agree, but they will keep contracting and not all will survive.
They are competing with something that's free. Never a good start.

I have a subscription to NRC Next.
The young-and-hip paper they built up next to the the old NRC, Grand Old Lady of Dutch newspapers.

It has the advantage that it 'pushes' news that I would not 'pull' from the web.
So I end up reading about some great stuff, artists, writes, intellectuals, architects.
I value this aspect very much.

[Eddie Dane]

Crikey is an interesting one. I originally ponied up for a subscription before the 2007 election, and I've been paying for it since, largely because it has a more political focus. They do a bit of media related stuff as well, and one of the things they've monitored is free newspaper giveaways. Turns out there's loads of 'em. And it's all about boosting circulation numbers in order to keep advertising revenues propped up.

This seems to be in it's infancy here in the Netherlands.

In Italy, you seem to get a free CD or blockbuster DVD with every paper.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My main concern is that it will gut the number of journalists who can actually do work. Let's face it, the news we read online is extremely dependent on the work of newspaper journalists.

[Wildy]

There is a parallel attempted takeover by one of the world's richest person, Gina Reinholt, who wants to take the paper down the Fox News pathway, but I think the paper version of the Age won't last long whoever runs it.

I think Reinhart is trying to get Fairfax so she can have a mouthpiece to further her own agenda. I don't know if that means going down the Fox News path though.

[geni]

My main concern is that it will gut the number of journalists who can actually do work. Let's face it, the news we read online is extremely dependent on the work of newspaper journalists.

Not really. Most of the stuff comes from a handful of press agencies who will sell to anyone. AP, AFP, DPA, Reuters ad few others.

There aren't many newspapers left that can afford decent sets of journalists without some outside source of funding. Within the UK it would basicaly be limited to the Daily Mail.

Of the ah quality papers the Gardian is subsidised by other elements of Guardian Media Group and the Times is certianly loss making. The Independent almost certianly is and trying to work out what is going on with the Telegraph is effectively impossible.

[AdMan]

Has anyone else had the experience of seeing a newspaper article, you saw three times on the web the day before?


Yes, and the lag is even more apparent with the weekly news magazines such as Time or Newsweek.

I think those won't be around very long either, unless they are reinvented as something very different.

[I Ratant]

Yes, with TV, a convergence with other media will occur soon. Personally I think TV will survive a lotlonger than papers.
.
I'll look at tv for fast breaking news, but the papers for the next-day's analysis, as tv rarely follows up on anything.
But the morning paper is getting thinner and thinner... :(

[rjh01]

.
I'll look at tv for fast breaking news, but the papers for the next-day's analysis, as tv rarely follows up on anything.
But the morning paper is getting thinner and thinner... :(

I think people will pay to read about expert opinions. Do not know if it will be via printed text or digital. If such things as iPads become popular (and it looks like they will) then that is where newspapers will end up. You will get the headlines and major news for free. Anything else will be paid for.