NiemanJournalismLab reporting:
Think about this. The Tampa Tribune, a paper that would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars a decade ago, sold this week for $9 million.
Its seller, Media General completed the disposal of its newspaper
properties, a movement that’s been celebrated by investors, with MEG
moving up about 18 percent in the past month, quadrupling the S&P
500 performance for that period.
Why?
The easy answer would be that MEG is now a broadcast company. But
wait — other newspaper-dominant stocks are way up, too. You can buy whole newspapers for the cost of mansions, and yet newspaper shares are going up.
Metro newspaper publishers tell you that next year will be still
another down year for advertising, Yet some of those who peer into the
future, estimating ad spend for the next several years, say they expect
it to finally flatten out.
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Many are in motion, as the varying moves
of Advance print reductions, Warren Buffett’s warm community print
embrace, Doug Manchester’s blast-from-the-past San Diego moves, Aaron
Kushner’s print-is-king Orange County Register foray, and adoptions of
paywalls and marketing services as new revenue streams sweep across the
country.
Let’s try to make a little sense of this cavalcade of numbers and see
what they tell us about 2013, as we do a little news numerology.
Let’s look at revenues first. Look at the advertising forecasts of everyone from Borrell Associates to eMarketer and find a surprise: Basically, they’re flattening.
Follow the long squiggle downward of print advertising
through 2012 — 18% decline in 2008, 28% decline in 2009, 8% decline in
2010 and 9% in 2011 — and then flat to more mildly downward. Why? Gordon
Borrell, the long-time tracker of the digital disruption of the press,
says the main reason is that things are looking up at smaller papers...
http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/10/the-newsonomics-of-near-term-numerology/?utm_source=Daily+Lab+email+list&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dcd5d1ac7a-DAILY_EMAIL
Showing posts with label media economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media economics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Nikki Usher: “Who Needs Newspapers?” It’s fewer people than publishers seem to believe
NiemanJournalismLab reporting:
In the April/May issue of AJR, academics Paul Steinle and Sara Brown report on their travels to 50 newspapers in 50 states to find out what was happening in newspapers big and small, from The Seattle Times to the 12,000-circulation Daily Republic in Mitchell, S.D. Their article (and full report at whoneedsnewspapers.org) might be the most optimistic future-of-news report we’ve seen so far.
Newspapers are trying to avert economic disaster. And the steps that some are taking show signs of promise — boosts in overall circulation, jumps in digital subscribers. But my concern is that newsrooms are falsely holding on to the belief that their community members will continue to see them as their most important source of information.
This view may be leading newsrooms to false optimism. Consider what we learn from the profiles of some of these newspapers in the report.
“There are no such things as sleepy towns,” says (Grand Junction, Colo.) Daily Sentinel publisher Jay Seaton, “there are only sleepy newspapers.” Citing corruption by city officials in Bell, Calif., a town that didn’t have a newspaper, Seaton vows, “That’s never going to happen here, because we’re watching.” So Bell’s corruption was really the fault of The Los Angeles Times for not doing a better job? Where do we begin with this statement?
...This celebratory conviction of journalists doing God’s work to protect the community appears throughout every portrait of the 50 newspapers profiled. But there’s an underlying, unacknowledged fact: Local news, and in particular local news online, is not something people care about as much as local journalists might hope. As my colleague Matt Hindman found using comScore data: Local news gets less than half of one percent of all pageviews in a local market. Hindman finds that local news sites attracted 8.3 to 17 pageviews per person per month. People spend about nine minutes a month with local news, he found. Many local news sites are still struggling, beset by problems — long load time, poor design, retention of top developers and multimedia producers — that make it hard to increase engagement in a fragmented news marked.
The Who Needs Newspapers report says the keys to success include community-service-driven reporters and ethically managed reporting. And in each of the 50 profiles, editors wax on about their commitment to covering the important public-service news that keep citizens coming back to the newspaper.
More bad news: This isn’t why people are reading newspapers...
http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/who-needs-newspapers-its-fewer-people-than-publishers-seem-to-believe/?readnext
In the April/May issue of AJR, academics Paul Steinle and Sara Brown report on their travels to 50 newspapers in 50 states to find out what was happening in newspapers big and small, from The Seattle Times to the 12,000-circulation Daily Republic in Mitchell, S.D. Their article (and full report at whoneedsnewspapers.org) might be the most optimistic future-of-news report we’ve seen so far.
Newspapers are trying to avert economic disaster. And the steps that some are taking show signs of promise — boosts in overall circulation, jumps in digital subscribers. But my concern is that newsrooms are falsely holding on to the belief that their community members will continue to see them as their most important source of information.
This view may be leading newsrooms to false optimism. Consider what we learn from the profiles of some of these newspapers in the report.
“There are no such things as sleepy towns,” says (Grand Junction, Colo.) Daily Sentinel publisher Jay Seaton, “there are only sleepy newspapers.” Citing corruption by city officials in Bell, Calif., a town that didn’t have a newspaper, Seaton vows, “That’s never going to happen here, because we’re watching.” So Bell’s corruption was really the fault of The Los Angeles Times for not doing a better job? Where do we begin with this statement?
...This celebratory conviction of journalists doing God’s work to protect the community appears throughout every portrait of the 50 newspapers profiled. But there’s an underlying, unacknowledged fact: Local news, and in particular local news online, is not something people care about as much as local journalists might hope. As my colleague Matt Hindman found using comScore data: Local news gets less than half of one percent of all pageviews in a local market. Hindman finds that local news sites attracted 8.3 to 17 pageviews per person per month. People spend about nine minutes a month with local news, he found. Many local news sites are still struggling, beset by problems — long load time, poor design, retention of top developers and multimedia producers — that make it hard to increase engagement in a fragmented news marked.
The Who Needs Newspapers report says the keys to success include community-service-driven reporters and ethically managed reporting. And in each of the 50 profiles, editors wax on about their commitment to covering the important public-service news that keep citizens coming back to the newspaper.
More bad news: This isn’t why people are reading newspapers...
http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/05/who-needs-newspapers-its-fewer-people-than-publishers-seem-to-believe/?readnext
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)