City Desk » newspapers

Newspaper Ads Down 29 percent: Not A “Good” Slump

Erik Wemple — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:58:48 +0000

Recessionary times are all about relativity. Beancounters take a look at the biz climate and decide just how big of a hit the organization is going to take. We estimate that sales will be off 20 percent from the same period last year—that's how the exercise goes.

And then, when sales drop by a margin that's smaller than projected, a weird moment arises, and in the boardroom it sounds like this:

Well, our classified advertising sales were off by 11 percent this quarter, but we'd estimated that it would drop by 23 percent. So that's good news.

The whole phenomenon of cheering less-severe-than-predicted losses got a nice write-up by Washington Post reporter Frank Ahrens, in a February piece titled "Down Only 27%? We'll Take It!" The headline was based on a twist of fate for the stock price of Cisco Systems:

Consider Wednesday's quarterly earnings report from technology giant Cisco Systems, which builds much of the Internet's plumbing. The company announced profits that were down 27 percent over the corresponding period last year and predicted that sales would sink 15 to 20 percent in the next quarter.

In response, shares of Cisco climbed about 3 percent; the news was not as bad as expected. Some analysts suggested that Cisco's "turnaround" would lead tech stocks back.

Too bad no such bad-news-is-good-news scenario applies to the latest news for the newspaper industry, in which ad revs were down by 29 percent in the second quarter. According to the AP, the "magnitude" of newspaper industry losses has "intensified" over the last 12 quarters. Hard to find any good news here:

In a report released earlier this week, [industry analyst Ken] Doctor predicted newspapers won't recover all the advertising revenue that has evaporated during the past three years because be believes the recession accounted for only half of the decline. The other half of the equation represents ad spending that has permanently migrated to less expensive options on the Internet, Doctor said.

When Facebook Goes Wrong

Jule Banville — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:51:15 +0000

A crusty newspaper editor, let's say he's in his late 50s, is forced to take a buyout. Faced with some time on his hands, he gets on Facebook to a) post photos of his small, blond granddaughter and b) network to find a job. A first cousin, close to him in age, friends him and starts "suggesting" he friend others on the family tree. Crusty Newspaper Editor (CNE) declines to do so. Later, he updates his status with a sad tale of leaving an afternoon ballgame to go to a job fair where no one wants a crusty newspaper editor's skills.

The problem? Fixated First Cousin (FFC) is stuck on the unfriended relatives and sees this status update as an opportunity to dig at Crusty Newspaper Editor. Second problem? Both of them are old and don't know when to take it offline.

Trainwreck exchange after the jump.

Crusty Newspaper Editor's status:
sat in the sun and watched the [team] boot the ball and the game — at least three errors by time I left to go to the job fair, which in itself was an interesting experience. It was my first. To say employers (or those who were represented there) do not have need of editors and writers is an understatement. But it was fun to introduce myself and ask questions.

Fixated First Cousin: so you didn't know these people,like family you don't know, but it was fun introducing your self and asking them question....what did you ask? You must of told them about your self some, right? hummm I wonder.

CNE: Don't take me to task because I haven't made "friends" with every relative who is on Facebook. I told you yesterday that most I didn't even know existed. You give me a name, and I don't know who they are. So how could I have searched them out or even know they existed. As for having "fun" today, the "fun" came in overcoming my reluctance and forcing myself to shake hands and introduce myself, and ask if they needed someone on staff with my skills. This was a big deal to for me to overcome. So stow the veiled criticism.

FFC: I beg your pardon, I still think, if you can talk to strangers and find out things, how hard is it to talk to blood and guts family, no offense.

CNE: There is a difference between hunting down second cousin removed twice...and chatting about Great Aunt Maude, and going up to someone, shaking their hands and asking for a job. If it makes you angry that I haven't hunted down all our relatives, bath in your anger. I don't care.

FFC: I'm just a plain simple girl, only went to high school, some night classes in typing, but I don't spell well enough(thank God for spell check) I hope you are not mad at me?

CNE: I'm trying to keep a roof over our head and feed my family, and not having a lot of luck at it, and you are giving me grief for not connecting with every relative on FB. Yes, it makes me mad that you are pushing. If you have that much time, contact them all and have them ask me to be a friend. That would save me time. Right now I'm busy trying to find work. That's what is occupying my mind. Not chatting with family I don't know. First things first, in other words. And I apologize. I'm disappointed the job fair was such a bust, and I'm taking it out on you. I'm sorry. You just hit a sore spot on the wrong day. Not your fault.

FFC: I'm not angry, just can't understand why you find it so hard.
You must of did some reporting to find facts on the things you write about, and I don't see what you mean about 2nd cousin removed etc.. I got lost there.
oh man, I'm not pushing
just making a observation about the thing about how hard it is for you and family, don't me to anger you

CNE: Enough ... change the subject.

FFC: Like I said, I'm just simple and we are related, you and me, we have Dads who were brothers, we were the 1st grand kids, now you made me cry..............

CNE: Women ...

FFC: goodbye, and I'm sorry you are so sad and hurt, please forgive me, I wont talk to you anymore, in case I make you angry

Reasoned Third Party: Relax! If [he's] having a bad moment, just stop for a bit and pick it up another day. Geez!

Oprah Kicks Newspapers When They’re Down…

Dave McKenna — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:14:53 +0000

I watched the repeat of Thursday's "Oprah" on WJLA-TV about 1 a.m. last night. Suze Orman was the guest.

The personal finance guru delivered a sermon called "Rescue Yourself!" that included the steps folks should take to survive the current economy.

Among the first cutbacks advised: "Cancel Newspaper."

Orman asked folks in the crowd if they would adopt her plan. About half of those in the studio raised their hands.

Orman pleaded with the non-raisers to give it a shot "for six months."

"If I were y'all I'd pay attention to her!" Oprah told the flock.

The last time I watched "Oprah," the host was bullying James Frey. I liked that episode more.

Attention Google Crawler Bot: JEFF JARVIS, WHAT WOULD GOOGLE DO?, READ THIS IT’S IMPORTANT

Ryan J. Reilly — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:59:51 +0000

If Jeff Jarvis had his way, this post would not exist. In his new book "What Would Google Do?," Jarvis lays out a number of rules to help dead tree newspaper types and corporations in general face the new online reality–including "do what you do best and link to the rest."

Just like the newspaper industry he criticizes so frequently, What Would Google Do? seems like an attempt to make money off of content Jarvis previously gave away for free (his blog Buzzmachine apparently wasn't generating enough Google Ads revenue to pay the bills). Reading the book, one can almost imagine Jarvis opening up Google Docs, pasting in a series of blog posts, whipping out the thesaurus (or rather, firing up the search engine) and tapping out awkward transitions between each topic like a co-ed writing a thesis paper. That "link to the rest" rule, along with many other ideas Jarvis lays out, now has a catchier title then when it was a blog post titled Cover what you do best. Link to the rest. The general point is the same – in the age where everyone is a critic, why does every paper need a local critic? The link, writes Jarvis, changes every business and institution, but it's "easiest to illustrate its impact on news.

Publisher's Weekly says the "scattered collection of rambling rants lauding Google's abilities" generally misses the mark (but they don't even offer a permalink to their review on their website, so don't expect Jarvis to take them too seriously). "While his insights are stimulating," PW notes, "Jarvis's tone is acerbic and condescending; equally off-putting is his pervasive name-dropping."

But Jarvis isn't likely to care too deeply about what the book reviewing elite has to say, he's probably more curious about his customer rating on Amazon.com (currently at 3.5 our of 5, based on six reviews). The entire mentality of What Would Google Do? focuses on the power that the internet has given average people. Jarvis embraces the democratization of news (emphasizing news organizations as networks and platforms) and may have a good grasp on where the industry is headed in the future, but even he still relies on hierarchical structures of the past. Books are just about the least Web 2.0 platforms out there (even print newspapers can offer corrections in the next issue) and you will not find a full copy of the book on his website. The praise for the book on the back cover is full of big names including Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist, and Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody – no anonymous Amazon screen names here.

But even Jarvis admits he's somewhat of a sellout who can't live up to his own ideals as he admits in the book and in an interview with Newsweek:

"First, I'll confess, I'm a hypocrite. I didn't put this book up as a purely digital, searchable, linkable entity—I didn't eat my own dog's food—because I got an advance from the publisher, and other services. Dog's gotta eat. I couldn't pass it up. In terms of the process of the book, though, I hope it was Googlier [than most] in that I thought this book through on my blog. And the great thing about the blog is the people who help me there—readers who with amazing generosity will act as peer review and challenge my ideas, and push them and fill in gaps in my knowledge."

His chapter on media focuses on the shakeups required to the instrustries profitable. He dubs newspapers "The Google Times," Hollywood "Googlewood" and the publishing industry "GoogleCollins."

Newspapers don't get off easily. In a segment of the book called Newspapers, post-paper Jarvis writes that for news organizations, going digital is not as simple as filling web pages. "This transformation requires them to reinvent themselves – how they think of themselves, how they operate, how they relate to the public, how they make money – and fast."

Overall, Jarvis' manifesto for the internet age is a interesting perspective that shakes up the status quo and advances discussion of the future of media, which is perhaps what companies need during this time of digital transition.

He says that Google's impact on media is more direct and immediate than in other industries and endorses a radical solution: "Cannibalize thyself. Convincing audience and advertisers to move to the future is better than following them there after they have discovered other sources of news." He recommend papers set a date in the not-too-distant future to turn off the presses.

Here it's clear that Jarvis is recommending newspapers abandon the print ship a bit early. Asking the news industry to abandon print when it can still make money is a bit like asking Exxon to figure out a way to make gasoline obsolete. Ultimately, the financial pressure necessary to shift newspapers online will come from competition with other news sites. Let's hope (for aspiring journalists sake) that they're not too far behind the curve.

This posting was written by an intern, who–Jeff Jarvis will be happy to hear–is unpaid and therefore not draining from the concentration of resources where they matter, even if book reviews are not what he does best.

Columnist Gives Up on Newspapers

Erik Wemple — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:25:39 +0000

Dave Morgan has written some very definitive words on OnlineSPIN. Here's the critical line from his piece:

"I am not going to write about newspapers anymore."

Morgan doesn't leave this drastic statement simply hanging there. Like any strong columnist, he explains why he's going to these great lengths:

I no longer believe that the industry is very relevant to the future and things digital. Since I prefer to write about those topics, and am also becoming more interested lately in how the Internet will reshape the television and video industries, I plan to focus my attention there.

To all of which I say: Say it ain't so, Dave Morgan. Dave Morgan, as you know, is founder of TACODA and Real Media, not to mention chairman of the Tennis Company, owner of TENNIS.com, plus TENNIS and SMASH Magazines. To have a mind like this simply bow out of the newspaper-commentary business is staggering.

Please join me in appealing to Dave Morgan to continue writing about newspapers. He brings fresh and genuine insight to the subject area, and the industry needs as many minds as possible trying to figure out a solution to its woes. The sort of insight we could be missing in perpetuam lies right here, in a few lines from Dave Morgan's (hopefully not) last column on newspapers:

[T]he notion that the purity of newspaper journalism is the cornerstone upon which today's great metropolitan newspapers were built is revisionist history. Most of today's great newspapers were built through achieving dominant distribution in their markets, not through delivering better journalism. Most U.S. cities used to have two or more competitive newspapers. The eventual winner was almost always the one that won on the battle on distribution or advertising, almost never on journalism.

So please, go to Dave Morgan's site and ask him to reconsider. To reverse this hasty and foolhardy decision to stop writing about newspapers.