More doom and gloom for newspapers

Posted on July 28, 2007 by Melissa Worden

>> AP ending ‘asap’: No real surprise, says Doug Fisher. “E&P and some others seem surprised at this. Why? AP continued to distribute ‘asap’ through its members’ Web sites. But the 18-to-34 set isn’t going to ‘newspaper.com’ to start or end the day — or much in the middle, for that matter. Those readers tend to go to more socially oriented sites that let them share stories, photos, experiences, etc. Most newspaper sites are still far from that.”

>> The next three years are critical for newspaper Web sites, according to Howard Owens. He says: “I know there are those who would say the prospects are bleak now. I disagree. I remain hopeful. But I would say the trends now are neutral. Our fate hangs in the balance.”

>> David Johnson at the LostRemote gives some good analysis of Fortune’s “Can the Washington Post survive?” “Anyway you look at this, it isn’t a pretty picture for anyone in the news business,” he says. “Print is bleeding, but our customers, the guys like Jordan Bitterman who buy our advertising space, go to bed happy at night knowing they don’t need to pay us a lot to reach our online audiences.”

>> Advertisers better enjoy their shut-eye while they can get it. Sharply increased online rates are on the way, says Lucas Grindley. “If newspapers respond to market demands, the amount of money it costs for a simple banner ad is about to jump dramatically. Just guessing on the exact figure, but I’d say online CPMs have a strong likelihood of at least doubling within the next two years.”

>> And Lucas has a warning for newspaper employees: Prepare for salary cuts across the board. “Plan now,” he warns. “Many of you will make less money in the near future. Instead of cutting bodies, some newsroom managers will consider slashing salaries as a better option.”

Comments

One Response to “More doom and gloom for newspapers”

Beau Dure on July 29th, 2007 10:34 am

I like this quote: “Rather than think of ourselves as a shrinking newspaper, we think of ourselves as an expanding multimedia newsroom.”

That said, it may be true that online revenue never quite catches up to print revenue.

THAT said, there will be plenty of jobs in journalism in the future. Fewer of them will be with newspapers — scratch that and call them “news organizations derived from newspapers.” Add commercial blogs (Huffington) and ever-expanding cable entities (ESPN, HGTV, etc.), and you’ll have plenty of jobs to make up for the ones shed by newspapers.

And you’ll still have newspapers — perhaps MORE newspapers, with free tabloids popping up everywhere whether the local daily publishes them or not. In some cases, the newspapers might just be a big ad for the online version. Even The Onion has a print edition.

The question Lucas raises — how many of those jobs will offer decent family-supporting pay? Most journalism jobs already don’t. They’re OK for singles in their 20s, but not so good for families that have to pay for day care and rising health insurance premiums.

That means a couple of things could happen:

1. Journalism will be a young person’s game. People will be involved for five, maybe 10 years before moving into a “real” job.

2. Journalism will belong to the elites, those who can afford to take a loss on their efforts. That’s already happening to an extent in the blogosphere, where people who can afford to spend time on their blogs have a huge advantage over those paying the bills with demanding jobs. Working parents will be represented less and less.

Personally, I don’t fear being able to find work. I fear that most people are going to get their information from news organizations funded by people with an agenda who will suddenly find themselves able to outspend the local paper.