The end is nigh for many print editions

dixiefly

This evening I came across the following 2 stories

No more print as Newsweek goes digital
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/media/article3572296.ece

and I read this in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph

Guardian looks to digital future without printed newspapers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9616483/Guardian-looks-to-digital-future-without-printed-newspapers.html

You dont have to be particularly media savvy to figure that the days of the range of printed newspapers we now have are numbered. Probably half of the printed newspapers we now have will be gone in 5 years as the younger generations voate in large numbers with their tablet/ laptop/smartphone.

IRE60

There is always a tinge of 'the end of the world is nigh' in those comments, like the news reporting companies (if the print is indeed coming to an end, this is what the will be) will disappear overnight. There are those that say that citizen journalism will take its place, which is bo11ox. Leave the news to Twitter(where our last Minister of Finance died twice before he actually passed)? I think not.

No, the revolution will come in the form of Tablets, large mobile devices and device independent 'apps' like those based on html 5.

Just as the format for the transferring data began on 'floppy disks' and ended up on USB's and Clouds, the transfre of news will evolve too.

Rant(ish) over.

SiegfriedsMum

The real impact is going to be that where, currently, folks often get their news from online editions of newspapers, the fact is that the online editions are subsidised from the profist of the print editions. If the print editions go, so will the online editions of your favourite newspapers.

Rumours abund about various newspapers, but the latest rumour is that the Irish Times is running out of time, and will be closed within 6 months, and the decline in sales coupled with collapsting advertising prices hit home.

IRE60

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If the print editions go, so will the online editions of your favourite newspapers

But that's exactly the rational that besets the Industry! The print edition is declining - any sales analysis will tell you that. The Online editions are increasing. However at ad revenue is in the Print editions - not online. Therefore to survive its incumbent on the news organisations to maximize online revenue and reduce overhead in the Print edition.

They may have to move away for the print edition completely to survive. Just because the Print edition is gone - doesn't mean the online will disappear.

Digital subscribers to the FT now outnumber those in its print edition and digital revenue accounts for 50% of the FT total revenue - that's the model to watch.

They could be (in theory) very close to pulling the plug in the print edition and the online will still be there.

As for the Irish Times - thats bo11ox. And as to the rumours being "abound" - I'd like to see an example of one of theses myriad of rumours quoted somewhere, and not on Facebook or Twatter please - someplace where the sources is even vaguely believable.

SiegfriedsMum

IRE60 wrote: »

They may have to move away for the print edition completely to survive. Just because the Print edition is gone - doesn't mean the online will disappear.

That’s true, of course. But what has to happen for that to become reality is that the online edition has to take on all the costs of the print edition. If the online editions are currently running at a loss while they are being subsidised by the print editions, it’s not clear how to square that circle.

IRE60 wrote: »

Digital subscribers to the FT now outnumber those in its print edition and digital revenue accounts for 50% of the FT total revenue - that's the model to watch.

The FT is aimed at a specialist audience where there is very little competition. We know they are happy to pay for specialist financial information and as someone who works in the city, I know many of my colleagues prefer to read on iPads, PC’s etc for obvious reasons. The business model of the FT is not one which can be readily adopted by other general/non specialist newspapers.

The Times went behind a paywall some time ago, and the experience so far has not been encouraging. The average typical print reader (£26) is worth at least two and a half times (£10) the average online reader, so for the online version to make up for the sales revenue lost from the print editions is a big ask. That’s before we realise that the competitors in the sector are free online, so ni the current climate it seems impossible.

IRE60 wrote: »

As for the Irish Times - thats bo11ox. And as to the rumours being "abound" - I'd like to see an example of one of theses myriad of rumours quoted somewhere, and not on Facebook or Twatter please - someplace where the sources is even vaguely believable.

As someone who does not have a Facebook account or Twitter account, I am not aware of what is said there about the topic.

Whatever is said in the twittersphere, facts are facts. The sales of the Irish Times are in decline – just over 90 000 now and down 8.5% on the previous year. Potential advertisers are less, and the revenue generated per advertisement has also collapsed.

Just 5 years earlier, the Irish Times daily sales were +-120 000, which is a decline of 25% in 5 years, and this decline in readership is accelerating.

I wish it were not true, as we need robust and well written daily papers, but it seems hard for many of them to survive.

IRE60

"That’s true, of course. But what has to happen for that to become reality is that the online edition has to take on all the costs of the print edition. If the online editions are currently running at a loss while they are being subsidised by the print editions, it’s not clear how to square that circle."

You misunderstand the print model: Moving to a digital only edition would, on one side have massive cost savings - prepress, paper, printers, distribution, fuel, retailer’s margins etc. The coin toss is; will the paywall deliver enough to wash the face of the remaining costs – writers, subs, hosting, admin etc. That’s the big one.

“ The average typical print reader (£26) is worth at least two and a half times (£10)”

again your missing the fact that even after the paper is put through a massively high prepress process, printing and handling to dispatch – the other costs thereafter are (typically) about 23% in VAT (unavoidable in both scenarios), 20% retailers margin and 15/7% distribution. You’re comparing apples with tangerines there.

True the FT does dapple in a specialist area – but not that technology is improving in the mobile sphere – many US papers are looking at this again – most notably the Boston Globe. The (doomed!?) Irish times is going to begin to stick stuff behind a paywall in the New year, combined with a new website, a revamp of it’s print edition, a redesign of its current format to a std broadsheet (I’d say they are looking to partner with another paper for printing press space/time thus the change in size as their current web would be different to most presses in the country).

It’s true what you say of the papers sales decline– all of them are suffering and it’s all well documented. But it still doesn’t enlighten us as to where this rumour of the impending demise of that paper (in six months) is from, or indeed cited.

SiegfriedsMum

IRE60 wrote: »

You misunderstand the print model: Moving to a digital only edition would, on one side have massive cost savings - prepress, paper, printers, distribution, fuel, retailer’s margins etc. The coin toss is; will the paywall deliver enough to wash the face of the remaining costs – writers, subs, hosting, admin etc. That’s the big one.

From what we know at this juncture, we know that The Times, which went behind a paywall some time ago, is not generating enough online revenue + advertising to meet it’s costs. That’s not to say it might not at some point in the future.

The real issue here is how online readers access news. Currently, all the online Irish papers have to compete with RTE’s website, and in the UK the BBC’s website, for example. Both RTE and BBC have financial resources which are not available to other news organisations, and whether individuals will choose to pay for online news from an online newspaper, rather than get it from RTE and/or the BBC, remains to be seen. In reality, that’s the big question.

Certainly print editions with yesterday’s news are less and less relevant as the up to date online news is more and more sought after.

IRE60 wrote: »

again your missing the fact that even after the paper is put through a massively high prepress process, printing and handling to dispatch – the other costs thereafter are (typically) about 23% in VAT (unavoidable in both scenarios), 20% retailers margin and 15/7% distribution. You’re comparing apples with tangerines there.

Unfortunately, the apples and tangerines are of little interest to those seeking news on the internet, and currently both RTE and BBC‘s websites are amongst the most popular for those seeking hard news.

Whether or not there will be enough customers who choose to pay to get their news elsewhere, remains to be seen, but it is a real concern.

IRE60 wrote: »

True the FT does dapple in a specialist area – but not that technology is improving in the mobile sphere – many US papers are looking at this again – most notably the Boston Globe. The (doomed!?) Irish times is going to begin to stick stuff behind a paywall in the New year, combined with a new website, a revamp of it’s print edition, a redesign of its current format to a std broadsheet (I’d say they are looking to partner with another paper for printing press space/time thus the change in size as their current web would be different to most presses in the country).

It’s true what you say of the papers sales decline– all of them are suffering and it’s all well documented. But it still doesn’t enlighten us as to where this rumour of the impending demise of that paper (in six months) is from, or indeed cited.

While the rumour is just gossip, there are good grounds to fear for the survival of papers like the Irish Times, and as the revenue continues to decline, so the quality of the paper will also decline as they are forced to trim budgets in an effort to make ends meet. It’s not easy for them, and let’s hope they can find a way to survive in this brave new cyber world for news.

In the US, there are not the equivalent of heavily financially subsidised news organisations such as RTE and BBC, so the problems are not as acute, with all news organisations playing on a level playing field.

redalan

Excuse my naivety but doesnt the problem stem from the fact that the majority of papers on the internet are free? In order to maximise readership shouldn't the hard copy and internet editions compliment rather than canibalise each other? This is probably fanciful and maybe logistcally difficult but I have often wondered if there was a way of presenting a code of some sort in the paper that could be used to unlock more content from the website. Let's say that the match report would be available in the paper but further analysis would be available from the website with 'proof of purchase'.

IRE60

Well you could subscribe to the online - as opposed to proof.

I love the sky news model where they give you x on TV and online - but indepth with a subscription - ie live interactive maps for the forthcoming US election.

Its true - the papers put their own mouths around the end of a 12 gauge when the went for the free model.

The papers in Brazil have of late begun to fight back and have, firstly, withdrawn all their data from Google News and then forced Google to only include the headline in their news with a link directly back to their sites.

Seems to be working

SiegfriedsMum

IRE60 wrote: »

Its true - the papers put their own mouths around the end of a 12 gauge when the went for the free model.

Unfortunately, those who initially went behind paywalls, for example the Irish Times, were not successful in attracting enough subscribers.

There are real issues facing traditional newspapers, whether print versions or online versions. The younger generations simply have little interest in them, whether online or in print, and mostly get their news from the twit-o-sphere and other free social media type sites. How you convert them to pay for a traditional newspaper, either online or in print, is not clear.

Even the middle aged in their 50's don't buy newspapers in the same numbers as they would have done 5 or 10 years ago, and with the advent of 4g, it's likely more and more will come to rely on their phones or tablets and the decline in news print sales will continue.

IRE60

Ok – the point is being missed here. Let’s look at this from a completely different perspective.

The investment that the Indo, the Irish Times (RIP?), News Int etc put into their product on a daily basis is seen, by the vast majority of people in print – that’s their end result of all their labours.

And it’s true, that serving doesn’t seem to attract as many people as it did and more and more people are turning towards the digital diet.
So, the argument is, that if the newspapers wither away, then so does the organisation behind it. I don’t think so. They have to adapt – and some of them are already and some are not (and will possibly perish).

Look at the music Industry. They produced vinyl for decades, the interweb came along and they stuck their head in the sand. Then they finally adapted. Everyone suggested that because of the web bands/artists would ‘self publish’. Rarely happens – they need the likes of Island and Sony.

Twatter and the likes will never in a million years even come close to a “news organisation”:
“Rite, the Taliban, like, have, well, let of a big bomb, like….”

The serving will be incidental – paper, digital, audio. It’s the resource behind that that makes it important.

SiegfriedsMum

IRE60 wrote: »

Ok – the point is being missed here. Let’s look at this from a completely different perspective.

The investment that the Indo, the Irish Times (RIP?), News Int etc put into their product on a daily basis is seen, by the vast majority of people in print – that’s their end result of all their labours.

And it’s true, that serving doesn’t seem to attract as many people as it did and more and more people are turning towards the digital diet.
So, the argument is, that if the newspapers wither away, then so does the organisation behind it. I don’t think so. They have to adapt – and some of them are already and some are not (and will possibly perish).

Look at the music Industry. They produced vinyl for decades, the interweb came along and they stuck their head in the sand. Then they finally adapted. Everyone suggested that because of the web bands/artists would ‘self publish’. Rarely happens – they need the likes of Island and Sony.

Twatter and the likes will never in a million years even come close to a “news organisation”:
“Rite, the Taliban, like, have, well, let of a big bomb, like….”

The serving will be incidental – paper, digital, audio. It’s the resource behind that that makes it important.

Whatever perspective we choose to view from doesn't alter the facts. The music industry didn't have, for example, the BBC and RTE producing good quality content free with which they had to compete.

Some people have always chosen to get their "news" from what you and I might consider strange sources. The tabloids such as the Sun and Mirror are among the best selling "newspapers", and their content is mainly prurient and celebrity based, and while you might not like the content of twitter or social marketing sites, you can't force others to read source of which you personally approve.

I agree a lot of content is based on the resource behind it, which is why the BBC and RTE websites are so popular and why its very hard for traditional newspapers to compete.

Sunny Disposition

In the last year US circulation has stopped declining and it's largely because paywalls have been introduced. I think about one in seven 'papers' in the US are now sold online.

Clearly moving online is the future for the industry, there's no doubt about that. But while even three years ago people said paywalls couldn't work, it's now obvious they can. Ultimately the Irish papers are going to have to go this route too (Sunday Business Post has already done so), there's just no other option, giving the stuff away for free has failed. And it's not hard see why, as someone else said on this thread, it was suicide.

The industry is finally waking up, although it's a bit late for all those who've lost their jobs, but at least the complacency is gone and a bit of cop-on is being used by many publishers.

Someone mentioned the Irish Times earlier, I find it baffling that they haven't done a bit more to make money from their online users. They charge for the archives, but they could easily push it a bit further.

IRE60

Myself and Sunny are on the same page (be that paper pulp or digital!)

The paywall - or partial paywall - is the future (along with a few other bits) - especially for a paper that produces a high proportion of 'unique content', like say the Financial Times.

On the subject of the Irish Times I believe they have big plans for their offering on the Interweb in 2013. And staying on that topic and without being too “mercenary” or disrespectful: One would wonder the levels of interest there would have been in the initial interview the Irish Times carried with Praveen Halappanavar - had it been behind a paywall?

That “complacency” was a sense that was a legacy from the heady days of “Forth Estate”. There is a bit of cop-on now, but I feel that some of it is misguided and more to appease shareholders and/or investors.

US papers haven’t always been cutting edge in terms of reinventing themselves in the face of the digital future. But they are getting there. Their ABC audit is catering for multi platform analysis and it makes for interesting reading: http://www.ilevel.ie/media-blog/print/102425-usa-abc-newspaper-circulations

Sunny Disposition

IRE60 wrote: »

On the subject of the Irish Times I believe they have big plans for their offering on the Interweb in 2013. And staying on that topic and without being too “mercenary” or disrespectful: One would wonder the levels of interest there would have been in the initial interview the Irish Times carried with Praveen Halappanavar - had it been behind a paywall?

That “complacency” was a sense that was a legacy from the heady days of “Forth Estate”. There is a bit of cop-on now, but I feel that some of it is misguided and more to appease shareholders and/or investors.

But it is breathtaking to think that companies would go out of business and an industry shed thousands of jobs before any serious effort be made to make money from the online content.
Five years ago I was working for a sizeable newspaper company. I'll always remember at a meeting the editor said there was strong evidence to prove that giving the stuff away for free online was going to increase sales of the print edition. Absolute Narnia economics, and many people realised it, but not the genius decision makers. They're all still there, but many of the underlings have been made redundant.

Run_to_da_hills

A dangerous move which could eventually lead to a more controlled electronic censorship of the press.

IRE60

...but a move that's forced by necessity (€'s, survival etc)

Sunny: 14.4% of US newspapers are digital editions.

SiegfriedsMum

IRE60 wrote: »

The paywall - or partial paywall - is the future (along with a few other bits) - especially for a paper that produces a high proportion of 'unique content', like say the Financial Times.

You still have not explained why the younger generations are going to pay for sites they currently don't use, as they get their news free from the BBC and RTE and the twit-o-sphere.

Simply making statement of belief are not arguments.

jmcc

IRE60 wrote: »

The paywall - or partial paywall - is the future (along with a few other bits) - especially for a paper that produces a high proportion of 'unique content', like say the Financial Times.

The FT produces specialised content for a specialised audience. The Irish Times does not. I would not pay to read the wibbling of a bunch of pondscum intellects on their topic du jour. I want news and I want good reporting and analysis. For those I am willing to pay. My specialist area is technology and the business of technology. The Irish Times has had, over the years, a bunch of lifestyle journalists reporting on complex issues and getting them completely wrong. If I want to know about a product, I don't want to read the gobbling of a gadget geek or the press release recycling of a product pimp. I want the specifications, the good points and the bad points. I want enough information to be able to make a decision.

This is basically what happened to newspapers - the audience has fragmented and specialised whereas many of them have the same generic clueless non-specialised approach to specialised areas. The web provides more specialised content and at a higher level of knowledge and understanding than some ordinary newspapers could match.

The Irish Times screwed up their PPV offering because they got people who didn't understand the PPV model to implement it and their content just wasn't worth paying for on the web.

On the subject of the Irish Times I believe they have big plans for their offering on the Interweb in 2013.

Who cares? That's the problem for the Irish Times and others. People on the web change their reading habits and are no longer single news source readers. The whole reading model changed years ago but the Dublin print media still does not get this simple fact.

That “complacency” was a sense that was a legacy from the heady days of “Forth Estate”. There is a bit of cop-on now, but I feel that some of it is misguided and more to appease shareholders and/or investors.

There was a time when those writing about things had some familiarity with the topic and were not cut and paste merchants that were cut and pasted into whatever section of the newspaper was short on churnalists. That's the big killer for Irish newspapers - the rise of the churnalist. Why pay for churnalism?

I almost forgot to say: "Put that coffee down!"

Regards...jmcc