3 ms·
Newspapers used to be the gateway of fast changing information. The Internet changes that completely. With so many different kinds and sources of news on the
by ww520 8y ago
Newspapers used to be the gateway of fast changing information. The Internet changes that completely. With so many different kinds and sources of news on the web, and with ever faster publishing speed, newspapers have lost their biggest moat. It's only a matter of time they will be gone.
- losteric 8y agoThen why could papers coexist with radio and TV? Why are all three dying now? The internet allows hyper-targetting individuals - that's why money flows to the web. Advertising efficiency. Pace or quality of news was never a factor - hell, if you want quality traditional media's websites are still the go-to. Distribution is really the only eroded moat of value.
- na85 8y ago>Why are all three dying now? Ads. I can't block advertisements in any of those three formats, but I can on the web. I no longer consume television, newspapers, or FM radio other than CBC (public radio, mostly news and issues, no ads).
- losteric 8y agoAdblocking ad-supported websites is not a steady-state existence. Those websites will either shift to subscriptions, shutdown, or find the equilibrium of-difficult-but-not-impossible-to-avoid advertising I think the internet has overshot our attention carrying capacity and we're in for a crash as the pendulum swings back.
- ww520 8y agoThe mode of consumption, reading, is similar on the web and on the newspaper while radio and TV have different mode of consumption. As an example of precursor, radio news was pretty killed by TV news when it came out. When was the last time you listened to radio news sitting by the fireplace? People listen to radio news in cars while driving because they can't take their eyes off the road. Given a choice, people rather watch TV news than listen to radio news. Same thing will happen to newspapers vs internet news.
- pravda 8y ago> Newspapers used to be the gateway of fast changing information. Wrong answer! Here's the correct answer: Newspapers used to have a monopoly on advertising. They could extract enormous sums of money from advertisers due to this. Most towns had a single newspaper, because the nature of the newspaper business generally led to a natural monopoly. Big cities had maybe had two or three newspapers. Newspaper owners lost their monopoly. No more overpriced classifieds! No more money gushing in!
- davidw 8y agoSeems like part of it - especially things like classified ads - but... on the other hand, it seems they did ok for a while even with local TV and radio competing for local ad dollars.
- jacques_chester 8y agoAdvertising and classifieds are typically separate departments in most newspapers. Advertising has competed with radio, TV, direct mail -- you name it -- for decades on decades. What matters is that classifieds got gutted. That was the true river of gold. Newspapers got a cut of thousands upon thousands of transactions every single week, whether or not those transactions even occurred. Every potential hiring, every name change, every car for sale, every house on the market, pretty much all of commerce from petty to grand: the newspaper gets its cut. The income:cost ratio is fantastically high, especially since the cost of printing is subsidised (though not typically fully covered) by the cover price.
- baroffoos 8y agoNow instead of 2 newspapers having a monopoly over one city we now have 2 companies who have a monopoly over most of the planet.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y agoIt's more like a few advertising networks where thousands of journalism sites host ads where all advertisers bid on fairly. The tech monopolies is a separate topic.