Dead but not quite
Translation of an article in The Economist 12-18th June 2010
What happened to the death of newspapers so recently imposed on us? Only a year ago, the demise was very close. The recession reduced advertising revenue to a minimum and threatened to deprive the seal of that part of the audience that the Internet had not yet taken away. Such newspapers as the San Francisco Chronicle kept suicide diaries, counting down to their own demise. The US Federal Trade Commission organized a round table on how to save the lives of newspapers. Should they turn into parasites of society, living on charity? Or should exist on government subsidies? The next meeting of the round table is scheduled for June 15. But now these conversations seem to be less relevant than before.
The fact is that in many countries of the world, signs of a print crisis have decreased in number, or even disappeared altogether. German and Brazilian publications have managed to get out of the recession. Even American newspapers, which appear in almost the most problematic region from the point of view of the newspaper business, have not only survived, but also managed to make a profit. This is not the 20% that were familiar a few years ago, but still a profit.
However, the recovery process was unpleasant. Many newspapers managed to stay afloat, only throwing entire editorial departments overboard. In the American Society of News Editors, it is believed that since 2007, 13,500 jobs have sunk into oblivion. Readers pay more for smaller issues. Some newspapers even ventured to abandon costly delivery to remote areas, thus losing part of the audience. Nevertheless, these measures have already demonstrated their effectiveness and, no matter how regrettable it is for the journalistic community, their implementation seems to have just begun.
The newspaper business is becoming more balanced, with a more adequate, healthy ratio of advertising profits and subscription revenues. American publications have depended on advertising revenue for too long. The latter accounted for as much as 87% of total profits, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For example, in Japan, this ratio is 35%, and it is not surprising that Japanese publications are far less susceptible to the painful influence of the feverish market.
The tornado, sweeping through the editorial boards, affected everyone to one degree or another, but most of all he hurt himself where publications tried to cover as many genres and themes as possible. Columns of auto-and film reviewers disappeared from the pages, articles devoted to science and the economy as a whole, also went into non-existence. Budgets of offices abroad were cut down mercilessly. As a result, quantifying the content was seriously affected. However, universality is no longer on the virtuous list of the newspaper business. It is worth looking at least at the fate of the creation of Otis Chandler.
Thanks to family ties, Chandler in 1960 became the owner of the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper, at the head of which he turned out, was distinguished by a limited-conservative orientation, which reflected the character of the city in which it was published. Aiming at destroying the order of things, Chandler set about creating a New York Times competitor on the West Coast. His newspaper was characterized by a strong focus on serious, objective journalism, while it relied on a voluminous network of international correspondents. The newspaper's new “face” impressed with its highest quality, but as it turned out, it was not quite ready for the advent of the Internet era. In the past few years, the Los Angeles Times has undergone several personnel "cleansing", in 2007 it was bought up by a construction magnate and in 2008 started bankruptcy proceedings.
The problem with high-quality general newspapers is that, having brought their work to perfection, they produce not a unique product that people are willing to pay for it. The Los Angeles Times has an excellent foreign reporting school, but it's hard to prove that the content it creates is better than, say, the New York Times or foreign newspapers - sources of information that consumers now have unlimited and mostly free access from their laptops. and iPhones. Similarly, it is unclear why each large newspaper should feed its own auto-observer: the Corolla remains the Coroll in both Albuquerque and Atlanta. If we take it even wider - do presidential candidates or football teams need a whole retinue of journalists from various publications? Newspapers should focus on what they do well, that is, most often, local news and sporting events. If all the rest of the material is bought through news agencies, the reader is unlikely to feel deceived, at least as long as there is competition between the information providers themselves. After all, as a rule, the narrowing of specialization is tantamount to improving the quality.
Will the newspapers continue to wait for us at our doors, or will they completely switch to the network, they need to realize that only the product is sold, which differs in some way from the neighboring one. New technologies like the iPad only confirm this rule. The mere acquisition of a box of glass and metal does not make people miraculously pay for the news. They will begin to pay only for the fact that they will have at least some independent value for them, and the newspapers should remember this.
Newspapers, cutting off all unnecessary from themselves, one after another are saved from the crisis. However, perhaps a single operation will not be enough.
What happened to the death of newspapers so recently imposed on us? Only a year ago, the demise was very close. The recession reduced advertising revenue to a minimum and threatened to deprive the seal of that part of the audience that the Internet had not yet taken away. Such newspapers as the San Francisco Chronicle kept suicide diaries, counting down to their own demise. The US Federal Trade Commission organized a round table on how to save the lives of newspapers. Should they turn into parasites of society, living on charity? Or should exist on government subsidies? The next meeting of the round table is scheduled for June 15. But now these conversations seem to be less relevant than before.
The fact is that in many countries of the world, signs of a print crisis have decreased in number, or even disappeared altogether. German and Brazilian publications have managed to get out of the recession. Even American newspapers, which appear in almost the most problematic region from the point of view of the newspaper business, have not only survived, but also managed to make a profit. This is not the 20% that were familiar a few years ago, but still a profit.
However, the recovery process was unpleasant. Many newspapers managed to stay afloat, only throwing entire editorial departments overboard. In the American Society of News Editors, it is believed that since 2007, 13,500 jobs have sunk into oblivion. Readers pay more for smaller issues. Some newspapers even ventured to abandon costly delivery to remote areas, thus losing part of the audience. Nevertheless, these measures have already demonstrated their effectiveness and, no matter how regrettable it is for the journalistic community, their implementation seems to have just begun.
Destroying the house that Otis built
The newspaper business is becoming more balanced, with a more adequate, healthy ratio of advertising profits and subscription revenues. American publications have depended on advertising revenue for too long. The latter accounted for as much as 87% of total profits, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). For example, in Japan, this ratio is 35%, and it is not surprising that Japanese publications are far less susceptible to the painful influence of the feverish market.
The tornado, sweeping through the editorial boards, affected everyone to one degree or another, but most of all he hurt himself where publications tried to cover as many genres and themes as possible. Columns of auto-and film reviewers disappeared from the pages, articles devoted to science and the economy as a whole, also went into non-existence. Budgets of offices abroad were cut down mercilessly. As a result, quantifying the content was seriously affected. However, universality is no longer on the virtuous list of the newspaper business. It is worth looking at least at the fate of the creation of Otis Chandler.
Thanks to family ties, Chandler in 1960 became the owner of the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper, at the head of which he turned out, was distinguished by a limited-conservative orientation, which reflected the character of the city in which it was published. Aiming at destroying the order of things, Chandler set about creating a New York Times competitor on the West Coast. His newspaper was characterized by a strong focus on serious, objective journalism, while it relied on a voluminous network of international correspondents. The newspaper's new “face” impressed with its highest quality, but as it turned out, it was not quite ready for the advent of the Internet era. In the past few years, the Los Angeles Times has undergone several personnel "cleansing", in 2007 it was bought up by a construction magnate and in 2008 started bankruptcy proceedings.
The problem with high-quality general newspapers is that, having brought their work to perfection, they produce not a unique product that people are willing to pay for it. The Los Angeles Times has an excellent foreign reporting school, but it's hard to prove that the content it creates is better than, say, the New York Times or foreign newspapers - sources of information that consumers now have unlimited and mostly free access from their laptops. and iPhones. Similarly, it is unclear why each large newspaper should feed its own auto-observer: the Corolla remains the Coroll in both Albuquerque and Atlanta. If we take it even wider - do presidential candidates or football teams need a whole retinue of journalists from various publications? Newspapers should focus on what they do well, that is, most often, local news and sporting events. If all the rest of the material is bought through news agencies, the reader is unlikely to feel deceived, at least as long as there is competition between the information providers themselves. After all, as a rule, the narrowing of specialization is tantamount to improving the quality.
Will the newspapers continue to wait for us at our doors, or will they completely switch to the network, they need to realize that only the product is sold, which differs in some way from the neighboring one. New technologies like the iPad only confirm this rule. The mere acquisition of a box of glass and metal does not make people miraculously pay for the news. They will begin to pay only for the fact that they will have at least some independent value for them, and the newspapers should remember this.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/287660/
All Articles