More on the condition of newspapers

Friends: As some of you may have noted, we had a lively discussion on the sad condition of most U.S. newspapers under the Signe Wilkinson Tuesday cartoon envisioning a world without them. In response to Paladin's comment that content is the problem, I noted that while there may be some truth to that, the real problem is a broken business model.

The gap between ad revenues and production and distribution costs is growing for a number of reasons, most conspicuously the recession. Meanwhile, readers understandably resist higher subscription costs to cover more of the average $8 to $9 cost of producing one edition of a newspaper.

Prefab Sprout sagely and correctly pointed out that some newspaper companies, including McClatchy, bear heavy debt, and that this problem is driving down quality as newspaper publishers eliminate jobs and cut other costs to keep their papers in the black. Newspaper groups and privately owned newspapers that lack debt loads are in much better shape.

What I did not get to point out in response before I deleted the Tuesday 'toons to make room for today's 'toons is that even debt-free newspapers face dismal futures -- at least in their print configurations. Production costs are high and growing. The web platform, which all of them have, is much cheaper to service because they eliminate production costs. Readers provide the web equivalent of the newsprint by buying their own Internet-ready computers. News organizations need only a modicum of journalistic talent and a closetful of servers to circulate their products -- no production or distribution costs beyond that. Focus mainly on local content not available anywhere else, and you're prospectively golden (as long as you do a good job).

The problem that The Sun News and many other newspapers face with this two-platform configuration is that older readers still expect quality newspapers in print. As I noted yesterday, our print product still has a healthy market (thanks to the plethora of older readers in these parts). But many newspapers serve demographics more heavily weighted toward younger people, who tend to prefer to read news stories, commentary, etc., on the web. My own children are good examples of this trend; to them, the notion of buying the print version of a newspaper to consumer local news and commentary is absurd. Why do that when you can get the same thing online -- no wet newspapers on rainy mornings and, for them, easier navigability.

As I noted yesterday, readership of newspapers across both platform is at an all-time high, though some companies to better than others on that score. Quality of product still matters, and not all of them provide it.

But it takes bridge money to serve both platforms, and when the print product isn't pulling its weight, they tend to suffer. At some point, the survivors in this zero-sum game will cease print operations and go all online. But at this point in time, such an action would be a killer for newspapers like ours with a strong print-product market.

There you have it, in a nutshell. dc

Comments?

The gap between ad revenues and production and distribution costs is growing for a number of reasons, most conspicuously the recession. Meanwhile, readers understandably resist higher subscription costs to cover more of the average $8 to $9 cost of producing one edition of a newspaper.

Prefab Sprout sagely and correctly pointed out that some newspaper companies, including McClatchy, bear heavy debt, and that this problem is driving down quality as newspaper publishers eliminate jobs and cut other costs to keep their papers in the black. Newspaper groups and privately owned newspapers that lack debt loads are in much better shape.

What I did not get to point out in response before I deleted the Tuesday 'toons to make room for today's 'toons is that even debt-free newspapers face dismal futures -- at least in their print configurations. Production costs are high and growing. The web platform, which all of them have, is much cheaper to service because they eliminate production costs. Readers provide the web equivalent of the newsprint by buying their own Internet-ready computers. News organizations need only a modicum of journalistic talent and a closetful of servers to circulate their products -- no production or distribution costs beyond that. Focus mainly on local content not available anywhere else, and you're prospectively golden (as long as you do a good job).

The problem that The Sun News and many other newspapers face with this two-platform configuration is that older readers still expect quality newspapers in print. As I noted yesterday, our print product still has a healthy market (thanks to the plethora of older readers in these parts). But many newspapers serve demographics more heavily weighted toward younger people, who tend to prefer to read news stories, commentary, etc., on the web. My own children are good examples of this trend; to them, the notion of buying the print version of a newspaper to consumer local news and commentary is absurd. Why do that when you can get the same thing online -- no wet newspapers on rainy mornings and, for them, easier navigability.

As I noted yesterday, readership of newspapers across both platform is at an all-time high, though some companies to better than others on that score. Quality of product still matters, and not all of them provide it.

But it takes bridge money to serve both platforms, and when the print product isn't pulling its weight, they tend to suffer. At some point, the survivors in this zero-sum game will cease print operations and go all online. But at this point in time, such an action would be a killer for newspapers like ours with a strong print-product market.

There you have it, in a nutshell. dc

Comments?