Online revenue models are retarded. You could easily sell local ad-space on your online publication by targetting it to the person’s zip code. You could sell premium national/world ad-space and sell cheaper zip code specific ad-space. I always wonder why they don’t do this for On-Demand video. I was watching Dollhouse on Fox.com and they didn’t have any ads except for another Fox show, and yet ALL of these networks are freaking out about hte loss of ad revenue. How long will it take them to recognize that people watch TV via DVR and On-Demand more? The same is true for Newspapers. Google’s adsense is like a retarded child. I get ads for Eve Online all over the place. I ALREADY PLAY Eve Online, so that ad-space is completely wasted on me. They are clearly already taking info from my computer to deliver ads to me, how much harder would it be to sense that I login to Eve already and don’t need the ads?
And when the newspapers fold, who will bloggers steal their stories from?
Except it seems that as far as international news and political blogs go, a lot of the actual information comes from newspapers/the AP/other traditional news sources, while the blog just adds some commentary/criticism/snark. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s going to be tougher to do (and less interesting to read) with fewer and fewer sources of reporting to comment on
In addition to what **Smapti ** said (it was my question, too), there’s also this:
If we’re supposed to get our news from blogs now, does that mean that instead of getting one daily paper I’m supposed to figure out which dozens of blogs I should read – each one very specialized? So I read a few blogs for various issues regarding international news, a few blogs for national news, a few blogs for state news, and a few blogs (if I can even find any) for local news? Then other blogs for sports news, entertainment, etc.
One reason I like the newspaper is precisely because if covers all topics in an easy to handle package that’s delivered daily.
Ed
I think many examples, like both Iraq Wars, the current financial crisis and a lot of less important stuff, sports journalism e.g., show that access far too often leads to kowtow reporting.
What good does access do when it’s not used to the advantage of the audience?
The professionals rarely help us in our need to take a look behind the curtain, in fact they often act as if there is none or they actually drape it.
A “stay at homer” might not be buddies with “his” platoon or go to parties with his team but he might actually do some research, look into things, you know, do work that takes a lot of time, time you don’t have when you spend it on your access.
News reporting is sometimes entertaining, usually aids companies in making money and does a great job when it comes to public relations and propaganda but that’s not what I’m interested in or what I consider “journalism”.
There a many reasons that led us to that point – the concentration of the media into a couple of conglomerates, a lack of laws that could have prevented this development, the success of sensationalist news reporting, a shift of perspective within the profession, a shortage of experts in all sciences – but the result is that the media rarely help us understand the world we live in.
Has there ever been money in news journalism? Outside of a few stars, the rank and file newswriters are paid somewhat less than teachers:
As a journalism graduate, I can tell you news reporters don’t go into the field for the money.
There’s a lot of entrenched wisdom regarding the running of newspapers that does not apply to online advertising. Newspaper management has been inflexible in dealing with the Web. But in their defense, here’s a big part of the problem: papers used to get a lot of their ad money from classifieds, and those ads mostly go on Craigslist and other sites now. So it’s next to impossible to get somebody to pay to put those ads in the paper when they can put it on Monster or Craigslist or someplace else.
I think he was asking about what happens if there’s no money in publishing the paper itself, in which case nobody can afford to hire the journalists and pay them next to nothing in the first place. 
This blog post says pretty much what I would say. Newspapers are dying because their business model has been broken by the internet. And there’s no way to fix it. The newspaper business is over, and if we want journalism in the future we’ll have to invent some other way to get it.
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
Twitter, just like the newspapers do.
Just think of how many stories on the MSM are reporting on what’s being said in blogs. I got my news on the Thai coup from Asia Times Online where the contributors are all volunteer, and Thai expat forums.
This is what kills me. I can read most of The New York Times for free now, how is that a sustainable business model.
Making some of the content available only to paying subscribers (New York Times Select) didn’t work either.
Not that much, none of the current NYtimes “most popular” stories appear to be about blogging or quote bloggers. Most places run the occasional “what’s new on the web” type bit, but its not really a major source of MSM reporting.
On the other hand, going to the last three blogs I’ve been to recently, and looking the last three posts in each, all of them were discussing a report or segment from a major news magazine, paper, or cable TV channel.
I agree. It’s very silly that the networks waste time repeating what’s on the blogs, but they don’t spent that much time doing it.
Odd that no one has picked up on this real data. Are you at liberty to say why it was a bust?
Look at the usage model of the web versus print. When I read a print paper, I leaf through every page, and thus see every ad (and no ad blockers!) When I look on the web, I look at specific stories, and thus see a few very specific ads. In papers, you can have a full page ad next to a page of editorial. On-line, full screen ads get in the way of what you want to see and annoy most people.
I also read the paper while doing things that are inconvenient to do with a computer (like eating breakfast.) Maybe when we get electronic paper ads can be sold again, but I’m not at all surprised that your wife found it a bust.
I think it’s quite redundant and inefficient for my local paper to cover national news, sports, business, etc. I can get that easily enough from other sources, and they’ll typically do it better. However, I still like getting the paper to have it all in one place. So I think what will happen is that the part of the paper which covers national/global issues will be a standardized product (a-la USA Today), but there will be a section or two which covers the local news, sports, business, style, etc. So I could imagine getting to choose which national provider I want (NY Times, Wash Post, USA Today) to be bundled with my local sections.
I don’t think that the newspaper will go away. I still subscribe and enjoy reading it even though I can get just about all the info on the web.
I work for a newspaper that has one of the most-visited websites in the area. Here are my reactions to this:
a. Online revenue was growing steading through the 90’s but has flattened out in recent years, and it was never enough to carry print. I don’t know if the online advertising is handled well or badly in my company, but my understanding is that this phenomenon is widespread. Among the reasons are ad blockers and other technical ways of not seeing ads. You can’t do that in a newspaper. Also what **Voyager **said, online readers are not exposed to as much “cool” (as opposed to “hot” targeted) advertising as in a newspaper, so the non-targeted advertising is not as effective.
b. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to read content from interns or volunteers. I can hear the crazy from here. Otherwise, these suggestions have some merit. Our company seems to be adopting outsourcing quite a bit, on the theory that anything is better than having actual employees. Those humans, they are so expensive!
c. I think this is a total non-starter as a model for newspaper businesses, although such foundations might provide their own content that might be of interest to some people. The fact that they are non-profit does not make their objectivity any less suspect than profit-driven businesses like newspapers, in case anyone was thinking along those lines.
The bottom line: I agree that delivering newsprint to several hundred thousand homes every day is a business model whose time has gone. However, at present there is nothing to replace it with the ubiquity that newspapers once had. Maybe this is a good thing, and I think online news sites like seattlepi.com might become a popular place for people to get their news, but it’s never going to be as profitable as newspapers used to be.
Roddy
I don’t think it’s a total non-starter. Many newspapers started out as family businesses. A few, like the Christian Science Monitor actually were grounded in not-for-profits.
I think what will happen is that corporate ownership of newspapers will slowly devolve back to individual newspapers or small groups owned by entreprenuers. While that will do wonders for editorial diversity, it also means the general level of quality will revert to what it was between the World Wars – a handful of great ones, a few more small, good ones, and a lot of really third-rate fishwraps. Then after a generation or two, the original owner’s heirs will fight over their inheritance, sell out to a holding company and the cycle will repeat.
As for the future of online news, I’ve never understood why news organizations don’t charge for online access. But imagine the howls of “the Internet is supposed to be FREE!!!” Wake up, people! You’ll pay for porn but not information?
That’s something I could actually go for: NYT quality for national and international news, PLUS local news!
Ed
Because if you charge for access, like the NY times did, no one will pay. They’ll go to free sites.
And your comparison to pornography is apt, but for the opposite reason you think. Porn sales are down sharply, just like newspapers. They can’t compete with free porn. There’s enough free porn out there that I can’t understand why anyone would pay money for it.
You can get news on the TV and radio without paying for it, Seattle has two free weekly papers that are completely supported by ads. The model where you have to pay before you get the content is broken. People will pay for certain kinds of content–mostly business news–but they won’t pay to for simple news.