4 ms·

I don't think anything is that secret about their business model. You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue

I don't think anything is that secret about their business model. You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue soures. You largely give up on growth, but drop costs to near zero if you can and buyout based on the tail that will stick for a while. There are often hyperbolic claims that these local newsrooms would be making tons of money if only an investor came in who understood business - but the newsrooms never seem able to find that investor. Employee buyout efforts also have fallen flat, efforts which are driven by I think very clear views on what Alden will do (cut costs!). Separately, not all news has fallen - Wall Street Journal has to be making good money off their subscription and print product, they've taken a bit more of a middle of the road path relative to other media. NY Times and Washington Post also probably doing OK for various reasons. There is a real need for local news however, desperate, and ideally not the hard left / right type stuff that seems to emerge on social media.

xxpor 5y ago
It was always inevitable that the largest newspapers would be the winners in a world with the internet. The only thing that propped up local newspapers was the monopoly they had on local distribution (for readers) and therefore eyeballs (for advertisers). The internet completely breaks that. The unfortunate part is that the monopoly did pay for actual local reporting. But the ad supported business model for reports from city hall just isn't there any more in smaller cities.
- ghaff 5y ago
  And as you got into even smaller markets, local newspapers and reporting was always a shaky business. My town had a rather good local paper for a number of years but it was pretty much a labor of love and the publisher became ill and it shut down. Now, it's hard to find out about just about anything going on in town outside of Facebook and Nextdoor.
wahern 5y ago
The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post have all adopted partisan baiting techniques to draw in subscribers. (IMO, they've done so in that order, with Washington Post the most extreme, and NY Times bringing up the rear but quickly closing the gap as they've cycled out their older reporters with younger ones the past few years.) Their actual news reporting has suffered considerably, though they're such large organizations with enough veteran journalists that they do still put out some good pieces somewhat regularly, especially relative to newer media and smaller media.
- slownews45 5y ago
  As a long time reader of all three I don't disagree. I did think the NY Times and WaPo were pretty much equal in the kind of partisan baiting stuff (note I'm a dem donor but tired a bit of the sometimes comically bad "news" slants). Even though I'm left on the issues I've been enjoying WSJ though I skip opinion section / a bit less raw clickbait type writing. Still vote for the left - but I think it probably could use a somewhat mellower set of media bubbles - but maybe the market is just not there anymore.
  - alecb 5y ago
    WSJ's reporting is very good but their editorial board is maybe the most off-kilter in the entire industry; like 1/3rd of their op-eds are asking why the Supreme Court won't take up a case to allow employers to bring whips to the office.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  You’re mistaken if you think this is new. Just the other day I was reading an old NYT piece suggesting Thomas Edison be hanged for inventing too many things (such as a sound amplification device which they imagined would be in common use on the street and in restaurants.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
joe_the_user 5y ago
You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue soures. You largely give up on growth, but drop costs to near zero if you can and buyout based on the tail that will stick for a while. Sure, it's a dynamic that makes a whole bunch of things terrible. Local news indeed has lost money-making potential and this approach makes sense economically. But the dynamic you describe essentially "zombifies" a whole bunch of enterprises, which in turn makes them fragile and we can see the results today. And yeah, it's not shortsightedness on the part of a single investor, it's shortsightedness on the part of this society.
joelthelion 5y ago
> I don't think anything is that secret about their business model. You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue soures. You largely give up on growth, but drop costs to near zero if you can and buyout based on the tail that will stick for a while. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's OK. You destroy sometimes perfectly viable businesses and abuse their loyal customers, just for a quick buck.
rolandog 5y ago
The way I see it is that journalism is an essential service, ans—in the American brand of capitalism—essential things have to get exploited for billionaires to 'win' at their 'game' (be it services, infrastructure, or people). Maybe we should treat mega-wealth as an addiction, instead of fawning and celebration.

xxpor 5y ago

It was always inevitable that the largest newspapers would be the winners in a world with the internet. The only thing that propped up local newspapers was the monopoly they had on local distribution (for readers) and therefore eyeballs (for advertisers). The internet completely breaks that. The unfortunate part is that the monopoly did pay for actual local reporting. But the ad supported business model for reports from city hall just isn't there any more in smaller cities.

ghaff 5y ago
And as you got into even smaller markets, local newspapers and reporting was always a shaky business. My town had a rather good local paper for a number of years but it was pretty much a labor of love and the publisher became ill and it shut down. Now, it's hard to find out about just about anything going on in town outside of Facebook and Nextdoor.

wahern 5y ago

The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post have all adopted partisan baiting techniques to draw in subscribers. (IMO, they've done so in that order, with Washington Post the most extreme, and NY Times bringing up the rear but quickly closing the gap as they've cycled out their older reporters with younger ones the past few years.) Their actual news reporting has suffered considerably, though they're such large organizations with enough veteran journalists that they do still put out some good pieces somewhat regularly, especially relative to newer media and smaller media.

slownews45 5y ago
As a long time reader of all three I don't disagree. I did think the NY Times and WaPo were pretty much equal in the kind of partisan baiting stuff (note I'm a dem donor but tired a bit of the sometimes comically bad "news" slants). Even though I'm left on the issues I've been enjoying WSJ though I skip opinion section / a bit less raw clickbait type writing. Still vote for the left - but I think it probably could use a somewhat mellower set of media bubbles - but maybe the market is just not there anymore.
- alecb 5y ago
  WSJ's reporting is very good but their editorial board is maybe the most off-kilter in the entire industry; like 1/3rd of their op-eds are asking why the Supreme Court won't take up a case to allow employers to bring whips to the office.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
You’re mistaken if you think this is new. Just the other day I was reading an old NYT piece suggesting Thomas Edison be hanged for inventing too many things (such as a sound amplification device which they imagined would be in common use on the street and in restaurants.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

joe_the_user 5y ago

You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue soures. You largely give up on growth, but drop costs to near zero if you can and buyout based on the tail that will stick for a while. Sure, it's a dynamic that makes a whole bunch of things terrible. Local news indeed has lost money-making potential and this approach makes sense economically. But the dynamic you describe essentially "zombifies" a whole bunch of enterprises, which in turn makes them fragile and we can see the results today. And yeah, it's not shortsightedness on the part of a single investor, it's shortsightedness on the part of this society.

joelthelion 5y ago

> I don't think anything is that secret about their business model. You see this same model with legacy enterprise software and other long tail recurring revenue soures. You largely give up on growth, but drop costs to near zero if you can and buyout based on the tail that will stick for a while. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's OK. You destroy sometimes perfectly viable businesses and abuse their loyal customers, just for a quick buck.

rolandog 5y ago

The way I see it is that journalism is an essential service, ans—in the American brand of capitalism—essential things have to get exploited for billionaires to 'win' at their 'game' (be it services, infrastructure, or people). Maybe we should treat mega-wealth as an addiction, instead of fawning and celebration.