The Day The Newspapers Shut Down Their Sites

It's a false analogy. Our users produce page views and, in turn, banner impressions (granted, that is becoming less and less of a sales emphasis with each passing year). To a much lesser extent, users also produce revenue by clicking on contextual ads. Also, we sell the size of our audience to everyone from realtors to auto dealers who put their listings/inventory on our sites. So, while the sites are free in a literal sense, our users do generate revenue, or at least enable us to do so. It's not like subscriptions or single-copy sales have been the main revenue streams for the print product, so I think the "we're giving it away for free" shrieking is a bit over-the-top (as is the "we're not making any money online anyway!" whining, which is simply wrong).

Again, I'm not saying online revenue is where it needs to be, nor am I necessarily against charging for content. If any newspaper other than the WSJ could make that work, I'd be the first to copy their model.

 

I skipped pages 3-7 of this thread, so perhaps somebody touched on this. But the solution isn't charging people for online articles. Other than a handful of papers, that's not going to generate nearly enough revenue to make a dent in the problem. It'll be similar to subscriptions; sure they're nice, but they're not what's kept newspapers afloat all these years.

The key is monetizing Web advertising. Until we figure out a way to do that, newspapers in both hard and Web form will continue to struggle.

Also, shutting down free Web sites for two weeks will accomplish nothing on the bottom line. People will find their news elsewhere, then you'll piss off the lifeline of your company - advertisers.

 

Not exactly. If that's really the only way, then it's just running out the clock. There is no format in which web advertising can pay for newsgathering organizations as we know them.

 

Newspapers trained people for years to expect free news from their websites. Those other companies you mention did not train their customers to expect something for free. Why are newspapers angry at their customers for accepting?

 

Subscriptions have never been a huge part of the business model in terms of revenues. They've been more sunk costs to get the paper out there so advertisers have more reach. For the most part, newspaper subscriptions are cheap. The margin for subscriptions is tiny.

If subscriptions were so important to the bottom line, the Detroit papers wouldn't have ended delivery until the very end.

And there is no format in which Web advertising can pay for newsgathering orgs as we know them. Yet. But we have to figure out that format if we want our business to continue.

 

People act as if the subscription model hasn't been attempted by newspaper websites. The fact is, online subscriptions don't match the revenue generated by maximizing your audience. Maybe someday online subscriptions will be viable, but until then, we need to offer better online marketing solutions for our advertisers. If you can go out into the market with not just a banner on your site, but also a behavioral targeted ad on Yahoo, SEM campaigns on major search engines, maybe an upgraged business directory listing a la the Yellow Pages ... now you have some value. Plus when the economy turns around, our recruitment partnerships with Monster/CareerBuilder/HotJobs will be more lucrative. Also, several revenue streams (video ads, SMS, e-editions, etc.) are just in their infancy right now. Call me crazy, but I think pursuing all of those avenues is a far better solution than unplugging your site for two weeks.

 

We've been trying for the better part of a decade and are not one step closer to a solution. Forgive my pessimism.

 

How much is this website making for its banner ads?

 

Back to my Rivals.com thoughts, the point is that we absolutely can't just toss newspaper stories on the Web and expect to sell Web subscriptions that way. It has to be organized, user-friendly and somehow interactive. Newspapers need to make a commitment to hiring a Web staff, formulating a real Web business plan and then trying to give it a real go. You've got ink-stained wretches, lifetime newsies, trying to put together a Web strategy, and they are failing miserably. Someone needs to step up and do it right. Hell, maybe I'll do it.

 

John Morton, the most widely quoted newspaper analyst in the world, today says about Newsday's decision to stop giving away news content:

Maryland-based newspaper analyst John Morton said whatever concept Cablevision settles on is likely to be closely watched because charging for online content "is what the newspaper industry has got to figure out how to do."


http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-webcabl2712498959feb26,0,19406.story

Whether you agree or you don't, they will all play follow the leader now because that's what newspaper execs do. John Morton has spoken, and no doubt he'll elaborate soon in his AJR column. Newspapers followed each other like lemmings in giving away the product, and now they're all going to swing the other way within the next year or two. Sorry, Metin. Even if your ideas had merit -- and I don't think they do -- you are going to find them a very hard sell over the next two years, at least in the United States. The pendulum swung the other way this week.

Another interesting thing in the story:

Newsday's Web site has built a considerable following with the free content model. It averaged 67,336,021 page views per month in the July-December 2008 period, according to Omniture. According to Nielsen Net Ratings, the site recorded 3,010,833 unique visitors in the same 6-month period.

And an audience that immense is still not enough traffic to make significant money.

 

Frank, it's probably not enough to make significant money — now.

But if you force them to pay now and continue to do so while moving to an online only product, you eliminate paginators, newsprint and delivery trucks.

But the process has to start somewhere and somehow. What Newsday is doing is the right thing, IMO.

 

Yeah, fuck the designers and paginators.

Thanks, Pete. :