Gannett's latest brilliant idea

[shotglass]

Somehow, I don't see the same cash flow coming from that as in the days when Boscov's used to run 48 pages of print ads on a Sunday.

 

[lantaur]

Somehow, I don't see the same cash flow coming from that as in the days when Boscov's used to run 48 pages of print ads on a Sunday.

Well, somehow I don't see 48 pages of print ads running on a Sunday ...

 

[shotglass]

Somehow, I don't see the same cash flow coming from that as in the days when Boscov's used to run 48 pages of print ads on a Sunday.

Well, somehow I don't see 48 pages of print ads running on a Sunday ...

Granted. They don't anymore. So newspapers need to find a new cash flow. Again, explain how this can be it. You said there's a lot of money to be made. Is there any documentation that any papers are making that kind of money off the Web ... the type of money they made when Boscov's DID run 48 pages of print ads?

 

[Nathan Scott Phillips]

Somehow, I don't see the same cash flow coming from that as in the days when Boscov's used to run 48 pages of print ads on a Sunday.

Huge numbers of readers pay no attention to print ads, but it's considered OK to get them in front of a certain number of eyeballs. Maybe if advertisers think all the eyeballs are on the web, the ad money goes there. Certainly, web ads must be cheaper...

But really, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm shocked at the amount of money spent on advertising that's based on a vague theory, whim or who gave the client the best tickets. Seems like the ad game is not a science and is only vaguely an art.

 

[BillySixty]

Well, if nobody is reading the print product anymore, how can papers make money off of something that nobody is reading?

 

[shotglass]

That IS the assumption. So do you instead try to make your money on something that hasn't been proven to be a money-maker? Or are you just doing something to occupy the eight hours on the time clock?

 

[Tom Petty]

Nothing wrong with that at all. But do you have the writers who can turn that around, and still make the print deadline?

I know our major beat writers couldn't. They barely have time to hit the print deadline (11 p.m.) for 7 p.m. start times.

I'm at Gannett and we're doing this now. It's not difficult.

Come one people, if you want a job in the changing world of journalism, get on the bus.

Every major shop, not just those in Gannett, will be doing this soon enough.

that "thump" you just heard was me throwing myself at your feet. damn, you are awesome.

will you be giving a seminar anytime soon?

 

[Prince of Persia]

Nothing wrong with that at all. But do you have the writers who can turn that around, and still make the print deadline?

I know our major beat writers couldn't. They barely have time to hit the print deadline (11 p.m.) for 7 p.m. start times.

I'm at Gannett and we're doing this now. It's not difficult.

Come one people, if you want a job in the changing world of journalism, get on the bus.

Every major shop, not just those in Gannett, will be doing this soon enough.

that "thump" you just heard was me throwing myself at your feet. damn, you are awesome.

will you be giving a seminar anytime soon?

Petty, that statement is coming from a brainwashed Gannett editor. Likely one that just came back from their brainwashing session in Arizona. So yes, they can give you a seminar!!

 

[fmrsped]

My only sticking point with this is that at my former shop, a Gannett paper, their web site is updated every 10 minutes with a new story. .. So much so that there are 13 stories posted on their updates list from 7:45 to 9:15 THIS MORNING.

So if I write something at 7:45, it's off the front page, and lost, essentially, an hour and a half later. What the fork is the point of that?

 

[Prince of Persia]

My only sticking point with this is that at my former shop, a Gannett paper, their web site is updated every 10 minutes with a new story. .. So much so that there are 13 stories posted on their updates list from 7:45 to 9:15 THIS MORNING.

So if I write something at 7:45, it's off the front page, and lost, essentially, an hour and a half later. What the fork is the point of that?

With Gannett, it's all about quantity, not quality or what makes sense.

 

[sartrean]

So what's wrong with getting stories on the Web first? What's wrong with that thinking?

The newsprint costs, costs of operating the presses is the reason why we all make like $3 an hour (yet management still makes like six figures). We need to get rid of that, or slowly phase it out.

I see the future print editions having paid-for copy written by ad writers, mostly paid-for features. And over the next 10 to 15 years, people will be less and less inclined to pick up an actual newspaper, yet may visit a newspaper web site.

Everything's electronic today. I mean my grandparents turn on their computer to look at pictures of their grandkids. They never think about printing it out.

Also, the web allows for readers to send nasty emails to the sports writers, pronto. Whereas in the print edition they just need to remember the email address, and then find a computer. That's a hassle.

Print is slowly going by the wayside. Anyone hear monday's NPR report on the newspaper business? The Wall Street Journal says were all dead, we just don't know it yet.

As soon as you can show me, sartrean, as soon as you can state chapter and verse how Web presence is going to MAKE US MONEY ... I'm with you.

Please don't say it's through pay-to-read plans. Newspapers don't make their money on subscription or single-copy sales, and you won't make it charging a subscription for the Web site.

Please don't say it's on click-through ads.

Give me something better than that, and we'll think about it.

Shotglass, I can't point to a verse or a chapter, but more and more today, the younger generation goes to web sites for info and entertainment. The internet has already morphed into something that only a few could have imagined. In another 10-15 years, it will again have morphed into things that which we cannot fathom right now.

The newspaper industry will have to get on board with the changing medium. Paper is not needed anymore, and as the older generation dies off, fewer and fewer people will be accustomed to reading a printed page that leaves ink on your hands. It's already becoming a niche product.

Personally, I like reading a printed paper. But sometimes its just more convenient to read the website, especially if you're looking for one or two stories. You can do it at work, and hardly anyone notices.

As for ads on the internet, that's where we need to think video. If I'm about to view a video piece on a web site, it sometimes has a 10 second commercial, sometimes an ad for a local business. Its just 10 seconds, you may not listen to the sound, but the business paid for that and their banner is all over it. And then the three minute video story begins.

There's more to do with web sites. I don't know what, but somebody will think of it and it will happen. And like others have pointed out on this thread, we have to abandon, eventually, the old medium. It's not working anymore, and I point to continual decline of circulation (and newspapers actually printed), and ads paid for, over the past 10-15 years.

"Newspapers" are already a thing of the past (as we knew it). So web sites should be used for marketing as the print version slowly fades away. And I think the internet will be such a force of entertainment in the future, that the internet will house the new-"newspaper."

In science, they call it paradigm shift.

 

[Tom Petty]

Nothing wrong with that at all. But do you have the writers who can turn that around, and still make the print deadline?

I know our major beat writers couldn't. They barely have time to hit the print deadline (11 p.m.) for 7 p.m. start times.

I'm at Gannett and we're doing this now. It's not difficult.

Come one people, if you want a job in the changing world of journalism, get on the bus.

Every major shop, not just those in Gannett, will be doing this soon enough.

that "thump" you just heard was me throwing myself at your feet. damn, you are awesome.

will you be giving a seminar anytime soon?

Petty, that statement is coming from a brainwashed Gannett editor. Likely one that just came back from their brainwashing session in Arizona. So yes, they can give you a seminar!!

damn prince, i'm so excited, i'm typing with just one hand.