4 ms·

Newspaper Ad Revenues Collapse to 1950 Levels

12 points by da02 14y ago

eli 14y ago
First off, the business model of being shameless left-wing shills when alternative and honest opinion is available online just isn't working Ah yes, of course.
k-mcgrady 14y ago
A lot of the comments on the site seem to be blaming the papers for publishing poor content when better, more objective content was available online. I don't think this is true. People stopped buying newspapers because they could get the basics online for free and more up-to-date. If something is available for free people aren't going to pay for it. I still find the experience of a newspaper better and the content slightly better and more in-depth than what is available online (although this is changing, more often than not the content of the paper is available identically online now).
- kmfrk 14y ago
  It's breitbart.com. I wouldn't read the comments.
  - k-mcgrady 14y ago
    First I've heard of it. The comments seemed a bit crazy.
everlost 14y ago
Link to original source - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/09/freefall-adjusted-for-inflation-print.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/09/freefall-adjusted-for-in...
- macavity23 14y ago
  Much better link - the data without the ranting.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  It's interesting what a small difference on-line ad revenues make to the newspaper industry.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Yes, that is a much better link, and its fascinating. I interpret the data to be that global expansion of advertising 'inventory', bloggers can try to take credit but the credit rests solely on Google, and more specifically on Google's AdSense for Content program. Advertisers want reach to get to as many people as possible and Google could offer longer reach for the same amount of money, so advertisers started switching. And they are a herd, it works for Proctor and Gamble it will work for Macys or Safeway. When I can put my advertisment on a billion blog pages and only pay when someone actually cares enough to click on it? Win! No need for the customer to say "Oh I saw your ad in the Tribune" or special phone numbers to know where the lead came from. More analytics than you could shake a stick at, better targeting, and visible results. What's not to like? Google has been strangling the newspaper business by taking away their advertising revenue. Newspapers don't have a model yet where they can live off their subscriptions. That much is true. But even if the papers die and are reborn into something that is more like the Economist than the Daily Mail, amateur journalist bloggers will be no less successful at displacing professional journalists than amateur photographers have displaced professional ones.
- da02 14y ago
  I should have linked to that one. I'm sorry about that. I skimmed the article and overlooked it.
drcube 14y ago
Yeah right, Fox News is going to save us from the corrupt paleomedia shills like CNN? Lame. If this guy represents the "New Media", I'm going to buy a newspaper right now.
logn 14y ago
I can't even read this article it's so vitriolic. Maybe the newspapers are better at hiding it than this guy but at least it makes them easier to read. Wow, a sad day when an article like this, filled with such hate and lousy writing, celebrates the downfall of newspapers.

12 points by da02 14y ago

eli 14y ago

First off, the business model of being shameless left-wing shills when alternative and honest opinion is available online just isn't working Ah yes, of course.

k-mcgrady 14y ago

A lot of the comments on the site seem to be blaming the papers for publishing poor content when better, more objective content was available online. I don't think this is true. People stopped buying newspapers because they could get the basics online for free and more up-to-date. If something is available for free people aren't going to pay for it. I still find the experience of a newspaper better and the content slightly better and more in-depth than what is available online (although this is changing, more often than not the content of the paper is available identically online now).

kmfrk 14y ago
It's breitbart.com. I wouldn't read the comments.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  First I've heard of it. The comments seemed a bit crazy.

everlost 14y ago

Link to original source - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/09/freefall-adjusted-for-inflation-print.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/09/freefall-adjusted-for-in...

macavity23 14y ago
Much better link - the data without the ranting.
greenyoda 14y ago
It's interesting what a small difference on-line ad revenues make to the newspaper industry.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Yes, that is a much better link, and its fascinating. I interpret the data to be that global expansion of advertising 'inventory', bloggers can try to take credit but the credit rests solely on Google, and more specifically on Google's AdSense for Content program. Advertisers want reach to get to as many people as possible and Google could offer longer reach for the same amount of money, so advertisers started switching. And they are a herd, it works for Proctor and Gamble it will work for Macys or Safeway. When I can put my advertisment on a billion blog pages and only pay when someone actually cares enough to click on it? Win! No need for the customer to say "Oh I saw your ad in the Tribune" or special phone numbers to know where the lead came from. More analytics than you could shake a stick at, better targeting, and visible results. What's not to like? Google has been strangling the newspaper business by taking away their advertising revenue. Newspapers don't have a model yet where they can live off their subscriptions. That much is true. But even if the papers die and are reborn into something that is more like the Economist than the Daily Mail, amateur journalist bloggers will be no less successful at displacing professional journalists than amateur photographers have displaced professional ones.
da02 14y ago
I should have linked to that one. I'm sorry about that. I skimmed the article and overlooked it.

drcube 14y ago

Yeah right, Fox News is going to save us from the corrupt paleomedia shills like CNN? Lame. If this guy represents the "New Media", I'm going to buy a newspaper right now.

logn 14y ago

I can't even read this article it's so vitriolic. Maybe the newspapers are better at hiding it than this guy but at least it makes them easier to read. Wow, a sad day when an article like this, filled with such hate and lousy writing, celebrates the downfall of newspapers.