3 ms·

Put some ads on your blog. You'll make maybe $300-400/year. You'll essentially be making $1/hour. Advertising doesn't generate anywhere enough revenue to cover

by ig1 16y ago

Put some ads on your blog. You'll make maybe $300-400/year. You'll essentially be making $1/hour. Advertising doesn't generate anywhere enough revenue to cover a journalists salary let alone the overheads of a news gathering organization.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
MichaelGG 16y ago
Really? According to[1], print advertising brought in over $47 billion in 2005. Skip to 2009 and that number a bit over half (24.8BN), with online newspaper advertising not even getting in 3BN. That seems like a major loss in revenue to newspapers, one that must be making an impact. According to the NYT's 10-K [2], 53% of revenue comes from advertising! Yet in 2005, 66% did [3]. Also remember as print subscribers fall off, those costs fall off too. The raw cost of materials was around 30% of subscriber revenue, although I think they trimmed the size of it down to help out there. Wages for the actual print side are another fair portion. So, contrary to other claims, it would seem that advertising generates quite enough revenue to cover journalists. EDIT: Perhaps _online_ advertising isn't enough to cover salaries, but that's a separate issue. The newspapers are trying to make a transition as that nice money from advertising (especially classifieds) dries up. They can whine and complain about people "getting stuff for free" but it doesn't change the fact they are painfully adjusting to a new business model. 1: http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures.aspx http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures... 2: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000119312510036478-40RGSMR85LU9ELC7LLSMAE5QCT&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials... 3: http://www.nytco.com/pdf/annual_2005/2005NYTannual.pdf http://www.nytco.com/pdf/annual_2005/2005NYTannual.pdf

by ig1 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

MichaelGG 16y ago

Really? According to[1], print advertising brought in over $47 billion in 2005. Skip to 2009 and that number a bit over half (24.8BN), with online newspaper advertising not even getting in 3BN. That seems like a major loss in revenue to newspapers, one that must be making an impact. According to the NYT's 10-K [2], 53% of revenue comes from advertising! Yet in 2005, 66% did [3]. Also remember as print subscribers fall off, those costs fall off too. The raw cost of materials was around 30% of subscriber revenue, although I think they trimmed the size of it down to help out there. Wages for the actual print side are another fair portion. So, contrary to other claims, it would seem that advertising generates quite enough revenue to cover journalists. EDIT: Perhaps _online_ advertising isn't enough to cover salaries, but that's a separate issue. The newspapers are trying to make a transition as that nice money from advertising (especially classifieds) dries up. They can whine and complain about people "getting stuff for free" but it doesn't change the fact they are painfully adjusting to a new business model. 1: http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures.aspx http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures... 2: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000119312510036478-40RGSMR85LU9ELC7LLSMAE5QCT&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials... 3: http://www.nytco.com/pdf/annual_2005/2005NYTannual.pdf http://www.nytco.com/pdf/annual_2005/2005NYTannual.pdf