6 ms·

> ...newspapers are being clobbered by paltry returns on underfunded pension plans. So that would be "defined benefit" pension plans then. The markets have no

by jbarham 14y ago

> ...newspapers are being clobbered by paltry returns on underfunded pension plans. So that would be "defined benefit" pension plans then. The markets have no obligation to meet absurdly optimistic forecasts of returns on investment. If you're looking for someone to blame, consider that 10-year Treasury yields are under 2%, of which the single biggest buyer is the Federal Reserve. > The bread and butter for most of the [newspaper] industry is local information. No, the bread and butter of the newspaper industry is celebrity gossip, which is the very opposite of local information, and is a commodity product, which is why people are unwilling to pay for local newspapers.

philwelch 14y ago
I wouldn't call celebrity gossip a commodity product. People usually pay for commodities.
- nl 14y ago
  The term "commodity product" in this context refers a product that has been commoditized[1], and thus no premium price is possible. From Wikipedia: The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Yes, I know what a commodity is. Thanks for insulting my intelligence. I was distinguishing between a commodity product and a non-product, which is something people don't even bother paying money for because it's practically free. A commodity product can't earn a premium price, but a non-product earns approximately epsilon.
    - nl 14y ago
      Thanks for insulting my intelligence I have no opinion on your intelligence. However, given that you were getting down votes I think it is clear I wasn't the only one who thought your writing could be clearer.
derleth 14y ago
> the bread and butter of the newspaper industry is celebrity gossip, which is the very opposite of local information, and is a commodity product, which is why people are unwilling to pay for local newspapers. This directly contradicts itself, which is probably your point. Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. Or maybe they can create local celebrities to follow around and gossip about. (They might run up against tougher defamation laws that way, though.)
- jbarham 14y ago
  Celebrity gossip is fungible. E.g., suppose I cared about the gory details of the Cruise/Holmes divorce. A quick search tells me there are almost 2600 articles on Google News for "TomKat". Clearly there is very little incentive to buy a local newspaper when so much information is available for free from so many different suppliers online. Anecdotally, I live in Melbourne and get a weekly local newspaper, but I don't pay for it since it comes with a bundle of advertising flyers. We sometimes glance through the newspaper, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I'll wager that given the choice, most people would rather ditch the newspaper and keep the flyers. FWIW the future of journalism will probably increasingly look like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/. It's trivia and gossip mainlined straight to the optic nerve. Addictive and profitable? Sure. "Great journalism"? No.
- jeffool 14y ago
  >Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. I disagree. I think we'll still have local coverage. I just don't think it'll be very in depth for a long time, and it will be very understaffed. (And in case there's any doubt, I mean these statements from a personal, moral standpoint, not an economics one.) My city (Albany, Georgia,)has one supremely dominating TV station, one tiny one, one dominating newspaper, and one that puts out 50 issues a year. The neighboring, largely rural, Worth County, has a news site called WorthIt2U.net Sure, that's an infuriatingly bad name to me, but to the people of the community there, who kinda new AOL, and got faster Internet when it came bundled with their TV and came with their phones? It's where they go. And often times, they beat the larger places to stories that get hits (wrecks, arrests,) because they're local. People have responded. People that stereotypically would be considered as "not online" have a new primary source of local information, it's just ran by a much smaller crowd. What's not able to survive is an old model, and I don't think anyone on HN has a problem leaving behind old models. The only thing missing is this same thing targeting the prime demographic.

by jbarham 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

I wouldn't call celebrity gossip a commodity product. People usually pay for commodities.

nl 14y ago
The term "commodity product" in this context refers a product that has been commoditized[1], and thus no premium price is possible. From Wikipedia: The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoditization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
- philwelch 14y ago
  Yes, I know what a commodity is. Thanks for insulting my intelligence. I was distinguishing between a commodity product and a non-product, which is something people don't even bother paying money for because it's practically free. A commodity product can't earn a premium price, but a non-product earns approximately epsilon.
  - nl 14y ago
    Thanks for insulting my intelligence I have no opinion on your intelligence. However, given that you were getting down votes I think it is clear I wasn't the only one who thought your writing could be clearer.

derleth 14y ago

> the bread and butter of the newspaper industry is celebrity gossip, which is the very opposite of local information, and is a commodity product, which is why people are unwilling to pay for local newspapers. This directly contradicts itself, which is probably your point. Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. Or maybe they can create local celebrities to follow around and gossip about. (They might run up against tougher defamation laws that way, though.)

jbarham 14y ago
Celebrity gossip is fungible. E.g., suppose I cared about the gory details of the Cruise/Holmes divorce. A quick search tells me there are almost 2600 articles on Google News for "TomKat". Clearly there is very little incentive to buy a local newspaper when so much information is available for free from so many different suppliers online. Anecdotally, I live in Melbourne and get a weekly local newspaper, but I don't pay for it since it comes with a bundle of advertising flyers. We sometimes glance through the newspaper, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I'll wager that given the choice, most people would rather ditch the newspaper and keep the flyers. FWIW the future of journalism will probably increasingly look like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/. It's trivia and gossip mainlined straight to the optic nerve. Addictive and profitable? Sure. "Great journalism"? No.
jeffool 14y ago
>Focusing on local news is a necessary but perhaps not a sufficient condition for local newspapers to survive: They don't have a monopoly on any other product, but there's no guarantee they'll be able to survive on that one. I disagree. I think we'll still have local coverage. I just don't think it'll be very in depth for a long time, and it will be very understaffed. (And in case there's any doubt, I mean these statements from a personal, moral standpoint, not an economics one.) My city (Albany, Georgia,)has one supremely dominating TV station, one tiny one, one dominating newspaper, and one that puts out 50 issues a year. The neighboring, largely rural, Worth County, has a news site called WorthIt2U.net Sure, that's an infuriatingly bad name to me, but to the people of the community there, who kinda new AOL, and got faster Internet when it came bundled with their TV and came with their phones? It's where they go. And often times, they beat the larger places to stories that get hits (wrecks, arrests,) because they're local. People have responded. People that stereotypically would be considered as "not online" have a new primary source of local information, it's just ran by a much smaller crowd. What's not able to survive is an old model, and I don't think anyone on HN has a problem leaving behind old models. The only thing missing is this same thing targeting the prime demographic.