The Inksniffer: Recent Comments

Comment on I hate to say I told you so. Why newspaper web advertising revenue is just as small as it ever was

Dan Pacheco — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:04:09 GMT

The problem isn't the print medium per-se. The local ad dollars are there, and the content and audience are online, through news sites and many others. I think the real problem is that our newspapers are still largely general-interest products in an increasingly niche-focused world. I think we need to start experimenting radically with the print model in the same way as we are online with social media, which is all about niche. That's the focus of Printcasting, our new Knight News Challenge-funded initiative. Learn more about it at http://printcasting.com, read up on the idea and give us your feedback and ideas. It will be worth it, because at the end of two years everything we do with Printcasting in Bakersfield will be available to every other newspaper -- and ANYONE (local print shops, etc.) -- via an open-source license. - Dan Pacheco

Comment on I hate to say I told you so. Why newspaper web advertising revenue is just as small as it ever was

Joe — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:22:50 GMT

Hey I like your blog. I'm write a similar one on marketing">http://advertisingadvice.blogspot.com">marketing & advertising. I was wondering if you would mind if I would add a link to this site on the blogroll I'm going to make?

Comment on If newspapers are dying why do they cost so much to buy?

edward — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:49:49 GMT

I read this 8 months after you wrote it, so maybe it's unfair, but how do those decisions look today? Gathehouse is reporting big operating losses and a $1.2 billion debt for its 101 papers; Lee has $1.4 billion debt for its 54 papers, Zell has $11.2 billion in debt from the Tribune buyout, and McClatchy has $2.4 billion in debt for its Knight Ridder purchase. Blethen, with probably a comparatively paltry $350 million in debt is trying to throw his Maine operations over the side, and there's no prospective buyer for the Chicago Sun Times. Singleton with $1.3 billion in debt, is also desperate and laying off right and left while defaulting on payments. Looks to me as if the chickens are indeed roosting. I think this is going to be the biggest bloodbath we've ever seen in American newspapers with waves of bankruptcies this year. I just plain don't understand Gatehouse, either for what it is thinking, or where it is getting its money. Hyperlocal is one of those trendy reinventing journalism things that hits newspapers from time to time, but this crisis is proving that ads don't follow when newspapers go so local. Hope you are still employed by yours.

Comment on Maybe less is more in the future of newspapers?

David Sullivan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:50:06 GMT

John, great to have you back on the blog. You inspired me to start my own.

Carl Stepp wrote a piece Romenesko-linked today on this same point. As Brian points out, the Daily Me in print is not going to work. Everyone has a different Daily Me, which is why it can best be delivered online. But John, you are right in that there can be a Daily Us. The Hamilton Spectator famously went down this line a couple years back, putting out essentially a two-section paper. Juan Giner also says the future is smaller newspapers but still with lots of meat, just less filler. I don't know how they're doing in Hamilton these days.

I have to note that I find looking for movie times easier in print. But that's in part because we have classified-like movie listings. If it were looking through individual theater ads, it would be harder.

Comment on Maybe less is more in the future of newspapers?

Sniffer dog — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:56:46 GMT

You're absolutely right, of course. And this is the central newspaper dilemma now. I guess I'm speculating that the list of "must read" stuff does not need to be very long to make it worth buying the paper. A rip through the local and national news, two or three corking columns and a few other things. Newspapers can choose between overspending on paper or overspending on journalism (which is not the same as simply producing more of it). I think there's more future in overspending on content that people want to read and for which the newspaper is the best delivery platform/brand (and that would include mobile subs which I completely agree is another part of the future).

The only way newspapers get out of the hole is to invest in content and delivery systems that make it worth people paying for what they do. Breadth is not a problem online, so our old battle to be a broad church that touched a couple of bases with everyone is doomed. But if we look at where we are most credible, what people most value in what we do, reorganize our newspapers to reflect that (and the changing technological landscape) and invest in content and new platforms, newspapers can survive and would deserve to.

Comment on Maybe less is more in the future of newspapers?

Brian Cubbison — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:50:00 GMT

The trouble is, the perfect newspaper would give you exactly the five things you want, while Larry wants five slightly different things, and so on, until the paper thinks it has to be thick to satisfy everyone. I do think the best situation is to have a flagship Sunday newspaper full of classic journalism, with a robust Web and mobile operation to take care of news during the week, then certain niche publications.

Comment on Maybe less is more in the future of newspapers?

Mindy McAdams — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:03:09 GMT

Nice to see you back in the blog saddle again, John.

I lost my morning newspaper habit when I started checking e-mail with my coffee.

Comment on Prepare for war: Why ABC rule change will mean big changes for US papers.

Sniffer dog — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:32:34 GMT

Thanks for pointing out the two literals. The proximity of the U and I buttons got me.... They're gone now, but I'm intrigued by what you think is pompous about the piece.

Feel free to fire away and expose it as such in any way you wish. I'd welcome your input.

John

Comment on Prepare for war: Why ABC rule change will mean big changes for US papers.

Jim — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:53 GMT

The writer should learn how to spell before he pontificates.

Comment on Prepare for war: Why ABC rule change will mean big changes for US papers.

Mick Gregory — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:33:23 GMT

Inky,

You're reports are the most detailed on the shattered newspaper business. The new ABC rule will see paid circulation "jump" from now on with schemes of paying 50 cents for one paper, covering the whole month. But the free press will not cover this. How can they?