Tag: advertising

Newspaper Propaganda

I read this article today about a new group of newspaper executives that have banded together to combat what they see as the misrepresentation of the economic viability of newspapers. That article sums up the main message of this group (whose website can be found here) as:

— Newspapers are very much alive and growing when you consider the print and online audience together. And they talk to far more people than their radio, television and Internet competitors.

— Newspapers have earned the public’s trust because they employ professional journalists to verify news for truth, accuracy and context, and they are usually the first source of local news.

– Advertisers continue to invest in newspapers because they deliver results. They still move goods and services more reliably than other forms of promotion.

— Newspapers remain essential to our democratic system of government, serving as a watchdog against crime and corruption, and a guide dog for information that allows the public to make informed decisions on the issues of the day.

While the thoughts behind some of these points are probably on the right track I cannot help but read this website as a simple propaganda message by newspaper execs. A quick perusal of the groups website reveals headlines like “Let’s Invent an iTunes for News“, “Network television is fading fast“, and “Newspaper Web Site Audience Rises Twelve Percent In 2008“. While some of these articles focus on reinventing the newspaper industry a far greater portion of them focus on dispelling the notion that newspapers are in any sort of drastic decline.

I see many problems arising through this viewpoint of news and what needs to be done to revolutionize it. Instead of trying to summarize all of them I’d rather present what I see as necessary for a “news revolution.”

First, in my mind newspaper execs shouldn’t be putting their time into spreading the message that newspapers are doing well and that there shouldn’t be such worry. Instead, they ought to be focusing their attention and resources on creating and delivering content that actually spreads readership. If newspapers gain readership (either in print or digitally) then advertisers will listen. Don’t tell us that newspapers are doing fine, show us. Prove to the country and to advertisers that people are still interested in reading the New York Times.

Second, what I see as lacking is a mode of digital news consumption that can create significant revenue for large news institutions. I don’t see people as starting to pay for digital news content until they have a device that makes the consumption of this content indispensable or at least far easier than it currently is. Perhaps the Kindle, iPhone, and G1 are a start, and maybe there is a better device in the future, but ultimately newspapers will have to find a way to distribute content digitally through devices that already exist. With these devices that can seemingly do everything around people are not going to want to carry around yet another device to read their news on. Thus, the focus ought to be on newspapers banding together and creating apps for these pervasive devices that can distribute news from a broad base of sources as well as generate revenue. What I’m thinking here is an app with an interface similar to Classics for the iPhone, but one that places subtle and relevant ads among the content. This provides yet another form of advertising revenue for newspapers as well as an extendable and fluid form through which newspapers will be able to adapt to changing digital and economic conditions in the future.

Third, it’s time for newspapers to realize that a daily print distribution is just getting to be too costly. With this in mind their websites and portable modes of consumption need to create more revenue. On this note, the websites of newspapers should become more adaptable to the individual reader. This is partly being done through RSS feeds on many sites, but it’s not there yet. If I read headlines in my RSS reader or on my phone then I don’t really want to visit the sites homepage and see all of those same articles again. I realize that to individualize news to every user would be an immense effort both financially and technologically, but I think that we’ve reached a point with technology and content management systems that this is now possible and through creativity can be made feasible too.

Ultimately it may be that large newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal are just simply too big to adapt to this new age. Perhaps as some have suggested it will be small start-ups and maybe even college newspapers that provide a successful model for digital news distribution. There’s some exciting stuff happening out there and it’s time that print newspapers stopped trying to convince people that their medium is secure and instead started working on spreading and capitalizing on their digital distribution.

Phew, you made it all the way to the end. Those are just my two cents (or almost 900 words…yikes). I’ll probably look back on this in a few months and reword it and wish I had made it a little more solid and clear, but for now those are my thoughts.

Printing the NY Times vs a Kindle

An article on Silicon Alley Insider claims that the New York Times would be saving money if it were to buy every subscriber an Amazon Kindle. From the article:

According to the Times’s Q308 10-Q, the company spends $63 million per quarter on raw materials and $148 million on wages and benefits. We’ve heard the wages and benefits for just the newsroom are about $200 million per year.

After multiplying the quarterly costs by four and subtracting that $200 million out, a rough estimate for the Times’s delivery costs would be $644 million per year.

The Kindle retails for $359. In a recent open letter, Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis wrote: “We have 830,000 loyal readers who have subscribed to The New York Times for more than two years.” Multiply those numbers together and you get $297 million — a little less than half as much as $644 million.

While this makes sense it also seems to me that the Times would have more readers than 830,000. I’m just wondering if that number even accounts for all of the copies sold at Starbucks and other coffee shops every day. While it may be cheaper for the Times to get all of its subscribers Kindles I can’t believe it would actually be cheaper to get all of the people who read print editions of the Times a Kindle.

Link via Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle.

Techno Brows

Sometimes YouTube just has the best stuff on it:

Tip from Andrew Sullivan.

Another article on the decline of journalism

Just when I thought I had read everything up on The Atlantic’s website right now I came across a wonderful piece by James Warren concerning the frighteningly increasing decline of newspapers and traditional print journalism. In it he writes that:

This matters because of the unique role journalism plays in a democracy. So much public information and official government knowledge depends on a private business model that is now failing. Journalism acknowledges and illuminates complexity, and at the same time prioritizes, helping us to evaluate the relative significance of developments playing out all around us. A very shrewd journalist-entrepreneur I know, Steve Brill, asks that one just imagine walking into a library and seeing the pages of all the books scattered on the floors and stairwells. To be sure, editors are human and subjectivity plays a role, but a newspaper places those pages—and thus the news—in some sensible order.

And, importantly, there’s a sense of social mission. Good journalism keeps public and private officials honest and helps citizens make thoughtful decisions. It does this by systematically gathering, processing, and checking relevant information, and by doing it with a spirit of independence. It’s how two previously unknown Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, put together the Watergate puzzle that forced the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon.

While I do think that much of the problems that are currently inherent to print journalism have been self-created by the industry I nonetheless find it sad every time that I read about a newspaper laying off hundreds of workers. Like Warren says in his article the reality is that many of the most trafficked sites on the internet rely heavily upon newspapers for their content and reporting; were it not for newspapers I believe that some of the sites he lists (Huffington, etc.) would not have anywhere near the content they need for survival. As an addict of news and reading in general I find it personally sad that I would lose sources like the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post.

The next few years will certainly be interesting ones (and hopefully not too depressing of ones) for print journalism and I just really hope that at least some of the large print institutions survive and provide a model for others to follow in the rebuilding of newspapers.

Link to the full Atlantic article.

Marketing Like Obama

Found this today on YouTube. It appears as though companies are jumping on the themes of President Obama’s campaign and trying to use them to drive consumerism. As great as I think it is that a company like Starbucks is encouraging involvement in the community I find myself a little disgusted that they are using a moment like this as another reason to consume. I also am a little perplexed as to how Starbucks can legitimately claim to encourage consumers to be sustainable (which they try to do in the video). Drinking $3 coffee in a paper cup is about as unsustainable as it gets in my opinion.

On a slightly related sidenote the design in this video is just great. The colors, animation, and music is amazing.

Newspapers and their future

Michael Hirschorn over at The Atlantic writes of The New York Times that:

The paper’s credit crisis comes against a backdrop of ongoing and accelerating drops in circulation, massive cutbacks in advertising revenue, and the worst economic climate in almost 80 years. As of December, its stock had fallen so far that the entire company could theoretically be had for about $1 billion. The former Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal often said he couldn’t imagine a world without The Times. Perhaps we should start.

That’s a scary thought, but perhaps is one that is slowly but surely become more of reality. I don’t like to think of a world without The New York Times or many other large newspapers, but I still fail to see how they are adapting to new technologies in a speedy and efficient manner. The next few years will be interesting, and potentially lethal to the newspaper industry. I’m glad I’m did not go into school with dreams of writing for the Times.

Link via End Times – The Atlantic (January/February 2009) .

The Times Starts Selling Display Ads on Page 1 – NYTimes.com

The New York Times has taken a new step in its attempts to increase revenue: sell ads on the front page.

In its latest concession to the worst revenue slide since the Depression, The New York Times has begun selling display advertising on its front page, a step that has become increasingly common across the newspaper industry.

The first such ad, appearing Monday in color, was bought by CBS. The ad, two-and-a-half inches high, lies horizontally across the bottom of the front page, below the news articles and a brief summary of some articles in the paper. In a statement, the paper said such ads would be placed “below the fold” — that is, on the lower half of the page.

I’m glad to see that the NY Times is working toward staying profitable in creative ways. The fact that the ad will appear below the fold is important to me because it allows the paper to increase its ad revenue in such a way that (hopefully at least) is not distracting to the reader.

Of concern to me though is that if they are accepting ads like the CBS one that are two and a half inches high, what will happen to the front-page content? What I hope the Times will do is to simply shorten some columns but keep the same number of stories on the front page. If they begin to cut front page stories in order to fit the ad on the page then I’m worried.

Link via The Times Starts Selling Display Ads on Page 1 – NYTimes.com.

Back at WordPress.com

So I’ve moved this blog back to its original place at WordPress.com. I’ve found that the exposure that is inherent through this (i.e. getting traffic from WordPress’ own tag listings, etc.) is greater than anything I’m willing to do on my own. Since this is really a small project for me I’m not willing to spend the time drawing traffic to my site through commenting on other blogs, etc. With that in mind I’ve moved it back here but the rest of my personal site will remain the same. In addition, my portfolio will remain hosted through my other site. Anyway, enjoy the future posts here.