Mark Cuban: your saviour?

Right. They don't charge a lot. But they do charge something. In spite of there not being a lot of content (some have some canned content).

Now, a newspaper Web site has loads of content, in many cases even more content than the paid, newsprint edition has. And not very many ads, even though they are even cheaper than a shopper ad*.

So I don't think we can say content is the reason for the ads.



*Did you know you can buy a display ad on NYTimes.com for as little as $50 per day?

http://nytimes.adready.com/partner/?__utma=69104142.3000353045079471600.1230761077.1230761077.1230761077.1&__utmb=69104142.0.10.1230761077&__utmc=69104142&__utmx=-&__utmz=69104142.1230761077.1.1.utmcsr=nytimes.whsites.net|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/mediakit/&__utmv=-&__utmk=99186393

 

I say this out of much respect for you posting history, but that's the single craziest thing that has been posted on here. You compare shoppers to newspapers, a false comparison, and then ad sales on websites to newspapers and deduce from that the content is not the reason why advertisers choose to advertise.
If people aren't buying ads for the content, then why are they buying ads? Civic obligation? A legal requirement?
And then if isn't for the content, then why is niche publishing one of the most successful components of the news business right now?
Now, I could make an argument that would say that the reason why people advertise is because they want to reach a certain demographic. But to hit that demo, you need content that appeals to them, so that they will pick up the publication in the first place.
If it wasn't for the content, then you wouldn't have the readership and its actually the readership that the advertiser is trying to get.

 

Jay, you get ads by being located where there's money. I don't want to insult anyone's newspaper, but if you were to compile a list of the worst major metros in the country before everyone cut the hell out of their staffs and the economy tanked, most of them were in high-growth cities and were packed with ads despite relatively minimal efforts at producing content. If content were what brings in ads, shoppers and pennysavers never would have been so successful. If content were what brings in ads, most major stores would still advertise in the A section instead of converting to inserts -- some of them delivered only to specific ZIP codes, rendering newspapers merely as a cheaper delivery system than direct mail. Content isn't completely irrelevant, but it is pretty far down the list. It is far more likely that a good advertising market results in good journalism than good journalism creating a good advertising market. It goes against the newsroom's egocentric view, but it's true.

 

Newspapers are old news:

http://www.briansolis.com/2008/12/newspapers-are-old-news.html

 

People who really understand business know this as gospel. Hell, I realize this about as well as anyone.

Having said that, no one seems to be able to drill this very sentiment into the skulls of the powers that be on the business side at an overwhelming majority of newspapers. Cutting staff to the cellular level, relying on wire service copy for coverage of local teams and putting puppies on the front page (hi Sam Zell!) isn't serving the public we say we're supposed to be serving.

Doing a story on somebody because she chooses to advertise in your paper or refusing to cover a team because their university won't advertise in your paper isn't serving the public. Trying to put out a newspaper for an entire county and only paying one full-time reporter $18,000 and one full-time editor between $25,000 and $28,000 per year, relying on students and filler copy to fill gaping holes in coverage isn't serving the public.

Serving the public is making sure that the news people give a shit about is in the paper. Serving the public is ensuring that your product is top-notch. Serving the public is making sure the working environment at your shop is conducive to putting out the best product you can. You don't have to pay an entry level reporter $150,000 a year, but you can pay them a competitive wage and allow them to do their jobs without trying to micromanage them.

People wonder why newspapers are dying. It's not because of the Internet. It's because the bean counters are UNWILLING to invest the bare minimum needed to ensure that their product is one that people will WANT to pay for. The sooner someone realizes that, the better off we'll all be.

 

It'd be great to work for a newspaper published by Mark Cuban. At least, it would be for the three or four hours before we a screaming argument and he fired me.

 

If I'm an advertiser the only reason the content matters is that it helps predict who may be reading my ad. I want to know how I can reach the largest slice of the demographic I'm trying to reach in the most cost-effective way possible.

The problem with newspaper publishers on the Web is that they understand better than anyone how much they've watered down their products over the last couple decades. Now they don't have confidence to believe there will be demand for the product if they put it behind a wall and try to charge for it.

They need to start over and reinvest in their Web products as if they were new business ventures and take losses for a period of years. Most can't bring themselves to do this.

 

Good point, Cran.

 

It's great in theory. But not only won't newspaper executives do that, I don't see how I could do that if I were in their shoes.

 

Here's a good read on the future of newspapers, stating that going to online-only would be catastrophic for newspapers.

http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-newspapers-cant-stop-presses.html

It's long, but well-written.

The primary question is how to make profits off online editions, since the web, as an advertising vehicle, has yet to take off as folks projected a few years ago.

It has been reported that the LA Times makes enough off its website to cover the salaries of the entire editorial staff. But if LAT stopped its print edition, it would lose 90% of ad revenues and $65 million of cash flow.

 

Why not? Just like starting up any new business venture. Entrepreneurs invest in start-up businesses all the time. Develop a strong business plan, sell the idea to a venture capitalist, get financing, and make a go of it.

I've always wondered why groups of journalists haven't tried to do this on their own, leaving publishers and their attendant baggage.

 

Cran, newspaper brand names still have enormous if eroding marketing power it's tough to compete with. Although I will say that some of my friends in my old home town of Wilmington, Delaware said I should do such a thing to compete with the Gannett paper there, which they all despised.
Of course, we'd been drinking.