Unrequired Reading {30.1.09 to 31.1.09}

These are some of the things that have caught my atten­tion lately. It’s a more eclectic mix than just the news busi­ness, but then so’s life:

  • Online News­pa­per Growth Con­tin­ues to Impress | Seek­ing Alpha — “Des­pite the cur­rent troubles for the tra­di­tional news­pa­per industry, people are vis­it­ing news­pa­per sites more and more often to stay on top of cur­rent events,” said Schilling. “The chal­lenge for news­pa­per pub­lish­ers today is to learn how to cap­it­al­ize on this act­ive online read­er­ship and trans­late their increas­ing engage­ment into revenue.”
  • Why Celebrity Magazines Should Be OK | Jeff Ber­cov­ici — “Expens­ive gas, as I’ve noted, depresses magazine sales in a num­ber of ways: Con­sumers make fewer trips to he super­mar­ket and have less money to spend when they get there, and whole­salers make fewer deliv­er­ies so that news racks are apt to be more lightly stocked. A gal­lon of gas cur­rently costs a dol­lar and change less than it did a year ago; if prices hold, the effects should start show­ing up in sales fig­ures soon.”
  • A News Corp. Bull Throws in the Towel; Wall Street Journal Lay­offs Com­ing? | Peter Kafka — “Our fear is that News Corp. is so com­mit­ted to its exist­ing busi­nesses that it will be will­ing to sus­tain busi­nesses that slip into neg­at­ive prof­it­ab­il­ity for years, (sim­ilar to its approach to the NY Post). We believe sev­eral of its TV sta­tions are or will shortly be ‘in the red,’ with book pub­lish­ing head­ing for losses, as well as a sig­ni­fic­ant num­ber of its News­pa­pers. In fact, on a repor­ted oper­at­ing income basis, Dow Jones will gen­er­ate mean­ing­ful losses in its first full-year of News Corp. own­er­ship fol­low­ing its $5.7 bil­lion acquisition.”
  • Mat­thew Engel: Dis­patch from Colindale | FT.com — In an anonym­ous pair of build­ings on an anonym­ous street in an anonym­ous north Lon­don sub­urb there lurks one of the world’s greatest repos­it­or­ies of intel­lec­tual treasure.

    One uses the words “intel­lec­tual” and “treas­ure” with some dif­fid­ence. For here, too, lie all the foulest aspects of human­ity, as well as its occa­sional best. Here is all the vile­ness and degrad­a­tion and vice and versa and worser. This is Colindale, home of the Brit­ish Library’s news­pa­per sec­tion, tra­di­tion­ally the final rest­ing place of the old news­pa­pers of Bri­tain and much of the world.

  • Davos 2009: News­pa­pers Remain Dead | Tom Glo­cer — News­print is an out­put device, not an end in itself.  What mat­ters is qual­ity journ­al­ism which can and does thrive in mul­tiple media. 
     
    There are sev­eral advant­ages of paper: it is light to carry, highly legible, and can be fol­ded, writ­ten upon and read on the train or in the small tiled room.  How­ever, paper has its lim­it­a­tions: it is rel­at­ively expens­ive, must be phys­ic­ally delivered, is less envir­on­ment­ally friendly than digital bits, and can­not be eas­ily searched or pro­cessed.  This lat­ter point has res­ul­ted in the near destruc­tion of the print news­pa­per model as clas­si­fied advert­ising has fled online.
     
    While these trends are not uni­ver­sal, the com­bin­a­tion of these struc­tural chal­lenges with the tre­mend­ous cyc­lical pres­sures being exper­i­enced in most mar­kets should not make one optim­istic about the future of the print-only model.
     
    Instead, of lament­ing that the 4th Estate is dead, we should cel­eb­rate the innov­a­tions of the cur­rent age that can now be applied to telling the story
  • The Non­profit News­pa­per | Seek­ing Alpha — I don’t think that rais­ing sub­stan­tial endow­ments for genu­inely import­ant news­pa­pers like the New York Times or the Wash­ing­ton Post would be par­tic­u­larly hard. The more dif­fi­cult bit is how do we get there from here, given the fact that they’re for-profit com­pan­ies right now, with fidu­ciary respons­ib­il­it­ies to their shareholders.

    My idea is to dilute the cur­rent share­hold­ers to the point of irrel­ev­ance by essen­tially rais­ing the funds for the endow­ment through the sale of new shares. There are prob­ably other ways to achieve this too. The down­side, of course, is that the fam­ily own­ers of the news­pa­pers in ques­tion would see their own net worth — or at least the part of it tied up in the paper — also brought down to zero.

  • Steve Coll: Non­profit News­pa­pers | The New Yorker — “Yes, my think­ing is admit­tedly rooted in an aging generation’s exper­i­ence. Still, there is just no sub­sti­tute for the pro­fes­sional, civil-service-style, relent­less inde­pend­ent think­ing, report­ing, and obser­va­tion that developed in big news­rooms between the Second World War and whenever it was that the end began—about 2005 or so. And those qual­it­ies arose from the scale of those news­rooms, and the way the quasi-monopoly busi­ness model and high-quality fam­ily own­ers shiel­ded them from polit­ical or com­mer­cial pressure—not per­fectly, but largely. Yes, the big papers failed, as in the run-up to the Iraq war, but they suc­ceeded much more often. They prac­ticed a kind of journ­al­ism that, on the whole, was bet­ter for a demo­cratic con­sti­tu­tional sys­tem than any journ­al­ism ever prac­ticed before, any­where. So sayeth me, at any rate.”
  • Com­puters Des­troy­ing the Print Media: A His­tory | Val­ley­wag — Owen Thomas wrap: “Is it any sur­prise that print is dying? Not for news­pa­pers. In fits and starts since the 1970s and 1980s, they (and oth­ers) have been look­ing to go elec­tronic but they screwed it up. Watch!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>