Tag: newbiznews

  • Third newspaper company in debt squeeze

    The Star-Tribune disputes a New York Post story that it’s about to go bankrupt but I wouldn’t say this sounds positively optimistic (my emphasis):

    “The Star Tribune currently has sufficient liquidity and is current on all its debt payment obligations,” Harte said in a statement issued Sunday afternoon. Pressed further, he said the newspaper would not miss a debt payment this year unless things worsened.

    Bets, anyone? Add this to Tribune Company having to sell Newsday to raise cash to handle its debt and Journal Register facing a debt crunch. The slope is getting slipperier and steeper.

  • Crossing the rubicon from print to digital

    Monday’s Times has a feature on IDG, the trade publisher, making the successful transition from print to digital. (Actually, the company talked about crossing that bridge a year ago.) Says the Times:

    The journey beyond print is uncertain and perilous, but the experience of I.D.G., the world’s largest publisher of technology newspapers and magazines, suggests that it can be done. A privately held company, whose magazines include Computerworld, InfoWorld, PC World, Macworld and CIO, it appears to have made a profitable migration to the Internet, with revenue from online ads now surpassing print revenue. . . .

    “The excellent thing, and good news, for publishers is that there is life after print — in fact, a better life after print,” said Patrick J. McGovern, the founder and chairman of I.D.G. . . .

    Stewart Alsop, a journalist turned venture capitalist, was the editor in chief of InfoWorld in the 1990s, when it was thick with ads and its editorial staff was at its peak. “Technology publishing just happens to be at the point of this whole transformation of media,” Mr. Alsop said. “What’s happening at I.D.G. is a fairly accurate map for every other publishing organization. Get over it, it’s going to happen.”

  • Newspapers: a minus-sum game

    Henry Blodget analyzed the future of newspaper advertising this week, concluding that “the $42 billion that was spent on print newspapers in 2007 isn’t going to vaporize–it’s just going to go somewhere else.” By 2017, $10 billion of it will go to surviving newspapers, $2 billion to outdoor, and $30 billion to digital — of which, he predicts, $5 billion will go to newspaper web sites and $25 billion will go to “Google, Yahoo, Craigslist, eBay, Amazon, job sites, blogs, mobile ads, video ads, etc.”

    But I disagree. Much of the advertising that is still in newspapers will vaporize. Much of it already has vaporized. Papers in top markets are down tens upon tens of millions of dollars each in classified revenue that has disappeared. Those former advertisers are using free or near-free substitudes to bring in and serve customers: craigslist, real estate agents’ own sites, car dealers’ own sites, and other new competitors. That’s not even to mention the cheaper sites — Monster, et al — that took real marketshare but at lower revenue. That newspaper revenue is gone forever. I’m not whining about that. It’s the new reality of the post-scarcity economy. This will only continue.

    Now add Google and its power to get more and more targeted in a more efficient and transparent (well, translucent) marketplace. That is to say, the same marketing power will be bought for less.

    Now add more changes in the marketplace itself. There has been a tremendous consolidation in retail with all department stores becoming one — Macy’s — and big-box and mall retailers that spend more on national than local budgets and Wal-Mart killing stores but not advertising locally itself. Yellow Pages will also migrate to mobile Google maps, I predict.

    And there is the overall trend of advertisers replacing ad dollars when they create instead direct relationships with their consumers. Bob Garfield identified that in his Chaos Scenaro 2.0. And I wrote about that here.

    So you see plenty of revenue vaporizing. It’s not a zero-sum game. It’s a minus-sum game.

    Now at the same time, if papers are smart, they can use online and its laser targeting to serve a new population of hyperlocal advertisers that never could afford high-priced papers before. But as I can tell you from first-hand experience, papers are not built for high-volume, low-cost advertising like this. So those advertisers will go to Google and local blogs.

    : Gallows humor: Friend Steve Gorelick sends me the Onion’s analysis:

    A recent glut of feature stories on the death of the American newspaper has temporarily made the outmoded form of media appealing enough to stave off its inevitable demise for an additional 21 days, sources reported Monday. “People really seem to identify with these moving, ‘end-of-an-era’-type pieces,” Washington Post editor-in-chief Leonard Downie, Jr. said. “It’s nice to see that the printed word is still, at least for now, the most powerful medium for reporting on the death of the printed word.” Downie added that the poignant farewell Op-Ed he recently penned was so well received that he will be able to hold onto his job for up to six more days.

  • More writers than readers

    I just saw this stat as I was searching for something for the book.

    Pew said that in 2004, 2007, 53 million Americans “have used the Internet to publish their thoughts, respond to others, post pictures, share files and otherwise contribute to the explosion of content available online.”

    Only 50 million Americans now buy daily newspapers.

    The writers are starting to outnumber the readers.

    And the readers are reading something else. Pew says that in 2006, 57 million Americans read blogs, more than read newspapers.

  • Cable’s paper

    If I were Rupert Murdoch, I think I might just let the Dolans of Cablevision have Newsday. For they’ll likely run it into the ground. Like Brian Tierney, who had the misfortune of winning the Philadelphia Inquirer, they’re ill-prepared to manage the rapidly declining fortunes of a newspaper (see the post about accelerating circulation declines and the post about local advertising I’ll soon write above). Unlike Murdoch and the Daily News, they have no real opportunities for synergy and savings. Oh, yes, they have cable channels News12 LI, NJ, and NY but they are bargain-basement operations that could have reinvented local TV but instead come off like parodies. (I worked with them on the New Jersey launch when I worked at the Star-Ledger’s parent company.) The opportunities for cross-media ad sales are slight. They have a terrible reputation in the market for their customer service. They haven’t been able to agree with their board on more than one offer to take their company private; it’s almost as if they hope that a newspaper would be dead weight sufficient to lower the price of the empire so they could finally buy it.

    Here’s the irony: As with the Wall Street Journal, which was better off with Murdoch’s willingness to invest than the Bancroft family’s unwillingness, so would Newsday appear to be better off in his hands than in those of the alternatives. On On the Media this morning, Brooke Gladstone asked Jack Shaffer whether Murdoch is the last salvation of the American newspaper industry. Jack pshawed the thought. I’m not so sure.

    : Lauren Rich Fine, former analyst, says she’d buy a newspaper if the price were low enough. I think all you may be buying are shutdown costs. Remember when Tribune unloaded its strikebound Daily News on Robert Maxwell (I was Sunday editor at the time), they paid him $60 million to take it off their hands. And newspapers have only continued to slide since then.