8 ms·

This was a fascinating look not only into the modern newsroom, but into the mind of Jeff Bezos: The origin of many of the hires could be traced to a phrase Bez

by hooande 12y ago

This was a fascinating look not only into the modern newsroom, but into the mind of Jeff Bezos: The origin of many of the hires could be traced to a phrase Bezos had used several times during his visit to the Post in September, when he said that the newsroom needed to "take advantage of the gifts the internet gives us." ...explaining that he was comfortable simultaneously running a secretive company and owning a newspaper, because he believed that "powerful minds can contain powerful inconsistencies." "All businesses need to be young forever. If your customer base ages with you, you’re Woolworth’s" This guys is full of gems. I'm not sure if that insight will be enough to save the Washington Post. It doesn't seem like any number of gadgets and no reasonable amount of money will be enough to save the newspaper industry. Jeff Bezos is one of the few people who could do it, but it's not clear whether he's fully committed to the challenge. I'll miss newspapers, but I bet they'll be replaced by something cooler.

venomsnake 12y ago
There is market for quality journalism. Vox.com is doing quite fine. And a lot of people are ready to pay just not at current NYtimes paywall levels. My threshold is 1$ per week or month.
- adamc 12y ago
  It's not just the question of how much. The NYT doesn't have a plan where you can subscribe and share with your whole family -- if they did, and it was similar to what the cost of buying and sharing a paper used to be, I'd subscribe. (This is a problem with things like Kindle accounts as well, so I don't know if following Amazon's lead will solve it.)
  - ameister14 12y ago
    That's an excellent idea; I wonder why they don't do a family sharing plan. Do you think that the sharing would significantly impact the overall number of subscribers? Obviously you're of the opinion that the price point could be raised to compensate, but I'm not even sure the overall number would drop a significant percent.
    - adamc 12y ago
      I doubt it has much effect on subscribers. I suspect many simply share the password.
- cgh 12y ago
  The Economist's subscriptions are growing and their online offering is apparently profitable. Their strategy is simple: assume the reader is smart, write well and use appropriate humour.
  - selectodude 12y ago
    They're profitable because it's an expensive magazine read almost exclusively by high net worth individuals. Their subscription numbers are sub 2 million worldwide.
    - marincounty 12y ago
      Yea, I agree--
    - cgh 12y ago
      Correct. I don't understand your point though. Mine was that they are a profitable news source with a discernable strategy.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    how many papers can survive with that strategy though? Our family has subscriptions to the WSJ and Economist, but we have no plans to subscribe to either the NYT, SFC, or the Post. If this is the only demographic that can be profitably targeted with this strategy, then only a few can survive.
- akgerber 12y ago
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vox-media-ventures-into-general-news-and-news-analysis-with-voxcom/2014/04/07/436902fa-be85-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vox-media-vent... Vox Media is apparently at break-even after taking a ton of VC, but not profitable yet.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    For something that is 4 months on the market - break even is fine for me.
joshlegs 12y ago
So, disclaimer. Journalist turned web developer here. But I really don't think newspapers are going to go extinct, really ever. They are one of the only permanent records of history. Digital publications disappear like yesterday's rainclouds. There will always -- always -- be demand for physical products, because as humans we are very tactile. I think one of the root problems is in the quality of the journalism. Experienced journalists aren't staying in the game because there's no money in it. The ones who do stay in it are one of three things: crazy, passionate about the job despite the compensation, or not dependent on the income. There's a very limited group that can make it. Add in the fact that there's an extraordinary amount of pressure on journalists to produce unrealistic product goals and you've got a recipe for a mass exodus, paving the way for a decline in the industry. Next, consider that you've really never paid for news. You've always paid for the advertisements in the newspaper. That's the business model journalism is built on. So people don't want to pay for something they've historically not paid for. So what you're seeing now are a bunch of experiments in journalism business models. After a while, you'll find several that really work. In fact, I think there are several that show promise now. The only problem is you need someone with the financial ability, vision and appreciation for the work to back the industry, and I think Bezos has those things. The bottom line is that there is always going to be a demand for newspapers and news in general. In fact, people have been predicting the demise of the newspaper since TV was invented. But the bottom line is that newspapers just fill too many roles for them to ever become obsolete. Also, I need lining for my bird cage, so I'm gonna go grab a paper now.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >So, disclaimer. Journalist turned web developer here. But I really don't think newspapers are going to go extinct, really ever. Still, particular newspapers have already gone extinct by the hundrends, and the trend is not showing any signs of reversing. >They are one of the only permanent records of history. Digital publications disappear like yesterday's rainclouds. Sure, but it's not like people, the average consumer etc, appreciates that fact or gives a damn about "permanently recording history". Most of them don't even print their digital photos, maybe 5-10 of the best ones, whereas they used to have albums with 100s of family photos back in the day. (And most don't even backup their digital photos). That newspapers served as "permanent records of history" was a byproduct of them being available, dominant and profitable. Not something people specifically bought them and subsidized them for. >There will always -- always -- be demand for physical products, because as humans we are very tactile. Well, tablets are quite tactile too. And people have quit CDs and vinyl for mp3s and digital downloads/piracy. Sure, there's still vinyl pressed. But it's small quantities and is consumed without any wider cultural context in the society, just by a tiny niche of music fans. And pressing vinyl is a $1000 affair -- so you can afford to press 300 copies for stores etc, where running a newspaper is extremely costly, and a print edition even more so. So the difficulty of continuing one is not the same as continuing the other (vinyl) niche tradition. >The bottom line is that there is always going to be a demand for newspapers and news in general. In fact, people have been predicting the demise of the newspaper since TV was invented. That's a common logical error. The belief that if people have been making the same prediction that didn't pan out, it will never pan out. Not to mention: who said it didn't pan out? When radio/TV was invented, newspapers might not have vanished, but they lost a lot of their cachet as THE source of news and information. The loss in readers was ofset by an increase in education and thus an increase in a middle class wanting to read newspapers. But that was a historical accident. The spread of the internet didn't see any such simultaneous increase of middle class or literacy (probably because they had already hit a ceiling during the seventies). And TV, back in the day, had limited chanels and was live only. So not much of competition for the newspaper. Nowadays we have 200+ channel options, 24-hour news channels, Tivo and its ilk, and video on demand from the internet. Plus, written news on demand from the internet. Plus, the numbers (of declining readership) are very different (and much worse) in the internet age vs the tv age.

by hooande 12y ago

venomsnake 12y ago

There is market for quality journalism. Vox.com is doing quite fine. And a lot of people are ready to pay just not at current NYtimes paywall levels. My threshold is 1$ per week or month.

adamc 12y ago
It's not just the question of how much. The NYT doesn't have a plan where you can subscribe and share with your whole family -- if they did, and it was similar to what the cost of buying and sharing a paper used to be, I'd subscribe. (This is a problem with things like Kindle accounts as well, so I don't know if following Amazon's lead will solve it.)
- ameister14 12y ago
  That's an excellent idea; I wonder why they don't do a family sharing plan. Do you think that the sharing would significantly impact the overall number of subscribers? Obviously you're of the opinion that the price point could be raised to compensate, but I'm not even sure the overall number would drop a significant percent.
  - adamc 12y ago
    I doubt it has much effect on subscribers. I suspect many simply share the password.
cgh 12y ago
The Economist's subscriptions are growing and their online offering is apparently profitable. Their strategy is simple: assume the reader is smart, write well and use appropriate humour.
- selectodude 12y ago
  They're profitable because it's an expensive magazine read almost exclusively by high net worth individuals. Their subscription numbers are sub 2 million worldwide.
  - marincounty 12y ago
    Yea, I agree--
  - cgh 12y ago
    Correct. I don't understand your point though. Mine was that they are a profitable news source with a discernable strategy.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  how many papers can survive with that strategy though? Our family has subscriptions to the WSJ and Economist, but we have no plans to subscribe to either the NYT, SFC, or the Post. If this is the only demographic that can be profitably targeted with this strategy, then only a few can survive.
akgerber 12y ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vox-media-ventures-into-general-news-and-news-analysis-with-voxcom/2014/04/07/436902fa-be85-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vox-media-vent... Vox Media is apparently at break-even after taking a ton of VC, but not profitable yet.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  For something that is 4 months on the market - break even is fine for me.

joshlegs 12y ago

So, disclaimer. Journalist turned web developer here. But I really don't think newspapers are going to go extinct, really ever. They are one of the only permanent records of history. Digital publications disappear like yesterday's rainclouds. There will always -- always -- be demand for physical products, because as humans we are very tactile. I think one of the root problems is in the quality of the journalism. Experienced journalists aren't staying in the game because there's no money in it. The ones who do stay in it are one of three things: crazy, passionate about the job despite the compensation, or not dependent on the income. There's a very limited group that can make it. Add in the fact that there's an extraordinary amount of pressure on journalists to produce unrealistic product goals and you've got a recipe for a mass exodus, paving the way for a decline in the industry. Next, consider that you've really never paid for news. You've always paid for the advertisements in the newspaper. That's the business model journalism is built on. So people don't want to pay for something they've historically not paid for. So what you're seeing now are a bunch of experiments in journalism business models. After a while, you'll find several that really work. In fact, I think there are several that show promise now. The only problem is you need someone with the financial ability, vision and appreciation for the work to back the industry, and I think Bezos has those things. The bottom line is that there is always going to be a demand for newspapers and news in general. In fact, people have been predicting the demise of the newspaper since TV was invented. But the bottom line is that newspapers just fill too many roles for them to ever become obsolete. Also, I need lining for my bird cage, so I'm gonna go grab a paper now.

coldtea 12y ago
>So, disclaimer. Journalist turned web developer here. But I really don't think newspapers are going to go extinct, really ever. Still, particular newspapers have already gone extinct by the hundrends, and the trend is not showing any signs of reversing. >They are one of the only permanent records of history. Digital publications disappear like yesterday's rainclouds. Sure, but it's not like people, the average consumer etc, appreciates that fact or gives a damn about "permanently recording history". Most of them don't even print their digital photos, maybe 5-10 of the best ones, whereas they used to have albums with 100s of family photos back in the day. (And most don't even backup their digital photos). That newspapers served as "permanent records of history" was a byproduct of them being available, dominant and profitable. Not something people specifically bought them and subsidized them for. >There will always -- always -- be demand for physical products, because as humans we are very tactile. Well, tablets are quite tactile too. And people have quit CDs and vinyl for mp3s and digital downloads/piracy. Sure, there's still vinyl pressed. But it's small quantities and is consumed without any wider cultural context in the society, just by a tiny niche of music fans. And pressing vinyl is a $1000 affair -- so you can afford to press 300 copies for stores etc, where running a newspaper is extremely costly, and a print edition even more so. So the difficulty of continuing one is not the same as continuing the other (vinyl) niche tradition. >The bottom line is that there is always going to be a demand for newspapers and news in general. In fact, people have been predicting the demise of the newspaper since TV was invented. That's a common logical error. The belief that if people have been making the same prediction that didn't pan out, it will never pan out. Not to mention: who said it didn't pan out? When radio/TV was invented, newspapers might not have vanished, but they lost a lot of their cachet as THE source of news and information. The loss in readers was ofset by an increase in education and thus an increase in a middle class wanting to read newspapers. But that was a historical accident. The spread of the internet didn't see any such simultaneous increase of middle class or literacy (probably because they had already hit a ceiling during the seventies). And TV, back in the day, had limited chanels and was live only. So not much of competition for the newspaper. Nowadays we have 200+ channel options, 24-hour news channels, Tivo and its ilk, and video on demand from the internet. Plus, written news on demand from the internet. Plus, the numbers (of declining readership) are very different (and much worse) in the internet age vs the tv age.