Skip to main content

Compaine on Paywalls

Over at Rebuilding Media, Ben Compaine gives a pretty compelling breakdown of the sinking ad revenues of newspapers. Doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation, he arrives at the conclusion
If newspapers have essentially been able to thrive on the revenue from advertisers alone (again, with cost of printing more or less covered by circulation revenue), why are they having so much trouble today? The answer is not one single factor, But a major contributor is that newspapers – whether print or digital—are just worth less to advertisers than they were 20 years ago.
It's yet more evidence that the bubble of the traditional one-way broadcast model of media is bursting. Newspapers are having a terrible time dealing with their business model failing (which Compaine gracefully remarks on, saying editors usually thrive on this kind of economic collapse, except when it's their own).

I have been under the assumption that newspapers could save themselves if they'd just pull their heads out of the sand, and go completely digital. I was working from the same calculations that Compaine noted: The revenue generated by dead tree circulation is roughly equivalent to the cost of the dead tree circulation machine. Therefore, content creation (reporters, editors) were always supported by ad revenue. Distribution was supported by circulation. With the Internet now able to entirely handle distribution (and generate ad revenue), just remove the cost of paper distribution and a newspaper is back in the black. I largely attribute resistance to this idea as some combination of legacy thinking:

1) We're a newspaper! We have to print! They feel that they will lose relevancy if they aren't on paper.

2) Newspaper folk are largely left of center, and the idea of creating mass layoffs on the distribution side of the house is so unpalatable to them that it is unthinkable. They'd rather "go down with the ship" (a la Tribune, Rocky Mountain News, Philidelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle).

3) Content-generation and distribution are inseparable. This is the crux of the issue for all traditional media. (Just ask the RIAA). Once they lose control of distribution, they lose the monopoly they've held on the monetization of information. This is the bubble that's bursting for television, music, and newspapers.

But yesterday, William Rattray and I were discussing this topic, and something useful fell out of the conversation: The writing in newspapers simply isn't as relevant as it was 20 years ago. Everything has become an opinion piece, and papers just aren't as essential as they once were to the reader, since we're all making our own opinion pieces now.

Then Compaine hits me with this revelation:
Between 1989 and 2007 local cable advertising increased from $500 million to $4.3 billion—or from 0.4% of all advertising to 1.6%. Advertising in newspapers fell from 26% to 15% in this period. Although some of the highly local advertisers going to cable may have taken some of their funds from budgets for radio or other local media, it is probable that a significant share came from the hides of newspapers. I estimate perhaps up to 20% of the decline in local newspaper advertising share can be attributed to local cable spots.

So newspapers are losing ad revenue in traditional markets to local cable spots, and at the same time, don't have the leverage they used to with online editions, because online advertising is so much more efficient than print advertising. Newspapers can't charge for targeted online ads what they once charged for blanket ads based solely on circulation numbers. Online ads have far better metrics, so advertisers can see their ROI (or lack thereof) much better online.

This leads to Compaine's conclusion:
...even an all-digital newspaper may have trouble supporting its economic model with online advertising.
Maybe traditional papers really don't have any way out...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 and the Tools We Need to Re-open Wisely

There's a lot of graphs and stats that the news is throwing at people right now. So much so, that you can get information overload trying to make sense of the statistics that have meaning. To quote my old Econometrics professor, "There are three types of lies: 'Lies', 'Damned Lies', and 'Statistics' ". I should also lead with the caveat that I'm an engineer and data nerd by trade, but I'm not an epidemiologist. I welcome feedback from those who have more experience than I do. The most important question we're trying to answer (at least here in Michigan), is "How are we doing?", and "When can we reopen our economy?". With respect to those questions, here's my take on the most important data, and some caveats about what these data are telling us. The four most cited data in news stories are: Total Number of Cases Daily New Cases. Total Number of Deaths Daily New Deaths This post will talk about #1 and #2

The Re-Opening Experiment

We should remind ourselves that, this Memorial Day weekend and the weeks that follow, we are subjects in a grand experiment to see how good we are at social distancing as stay-at-home orders are being slowly lifted. The state's stay-at-home order was never meant to keep you, individually, safe from infection. It was meant to keep hospital's safe from being overwhelmed by too many of us needing them at the same time. In Michigan, the daily new cases of COVID-19 are higher today than they were when we locked down in late March. We are testing whether or not we can open up (with all of our new precautions and protocols) without spiking the rate of spread, but make no mistake: it *is* an experiment, and we *are* the test subjects. Please don't get careless as things start to open up. We need to get our economies back on track, but we are still a long way (and a vaccine away) from being out of the woods. Stay vigilant, folks. Wash your hands. Wear a mask. As has always been the

What Advice Would You Give Your Younger Self?

An old friend recently reached out to me (and presumably others) and asked us what advice we'd give our younger selves, particularly at ages 20, 30 and 40. After writing my response to him, I thought it worth posting myself as well.  The substantive bulk of my response to him follows: ----- The difficult thing is that I really wouldn't change a thing about who I am, so any call for advice feels a bit like a time-traveler scenario where my advice to a younger self would affect the outcome of my present life, and I'm not sure I'd risk it. My experiences shaped me, including the glaring mistakes, and I wouldn't trade places today with anyone on Earth. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics here, and thus assume I won't mess my own (present) life up. Wibbly-Wobbly. Timey-Wimey. It is also important to note that the question is "What advice would you give your younger self?". The a