Search results matching tag 'Philadelphia Inquirer'

So long Exchange & Mart

255762 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:37:00 GMT

Exchange & Mart had a very small print circulation with barely 20,000 and falling, but its closure in print and move to online only publication is a story that is set to be repeated over and over this year. Quite how much is anyone's guess.

With its position as a classified title the closure of Exchange & Mart in print is perhaps less of a surprise than many similar closures. The decline of the classified ad market that hit specialist titles like Exchange & Mart, as well as regional and national newspapers alike. It has spared no one and is only going to get worse. Eighty jobs are under threat at the auto classified title which adds to the hundreds already lost and under threat in the regional press within the last few months at titles like the Northern Echo where staff are considering strike action as they are elsewhere at titles like the Yorkshire Post.

The problem with some of these closures and cuts is that some like Exchange & Mart appear to be the only option. There is very little future in the print classified market. Regional newspapers generally, however, appear in some places to be put to the sword, which is probably why one independent local newspaper group, the Wigan Courier, has called online advertising a “digital fad” that will pass and there is “still no substitute” for a colourful local newspaper ad. More likely it is just a cheeky grab for publicity.

Managing director Mark Ashley told Press Gazette: “The Courier is bucking the current trend for regional newspapers, which has seen a year of contraction, circulation losses, job cuts and cutbacks.

“We believe that readers and advertisers want a mass distribution, colourful, effective newspaper that focuses on all the good things about our local Wigan community, and that the current obsession with internet advertising and Facebook will gradually go the way of all the digital fads over the last few years."

That said the signs of change in magazine and newspaper publishing are evident in all markets. We've all seen it. At the end of last year Ziff Davis Media closed the print edition of its once flagship title, PCMag, after 26 years and will publish the magazine online only.

That followed on a larger scale the news that the Christian Science Monitor was to close down and going online only and CosmoGirl while the Sporting News and US News & World Report cut their print frequency and put more focus on the web.

In the B2B sector, there are a number of examples, but close to hand at Haymarket, which owns Brand Republic, Marketing Direct and Promotions & Incentives have gone online only. They will not be the last in the B2B sector either, which has also been hit hard by the decline of the ad market.

And the truth as we have already witnessed is that online is no safe haven. The truth that has revealed itself is that the expected hand in hand growth of revenues and traffic has not happened. Traffic for many sites big and small has soared, but the revenue is not growing at anything like the same rate.

The web posted annual growth of 29.5% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 digital ad spend in 2009 is expected just 2.1%, according to Enders Analysis forecasts.

This is why this week you have had ITV writing down the value of Friends Reunited, concluding that the site is worth less than the £175m it bought it for.

ITV like a lot of media companies look unlikely to hit online revenue targets the projections for which were based on much higher growth rates than we are now living with.

Follow me on Twitter

Positive story about the future of newspapers

255762 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:28:00 GMT

Rupert Murdoch has been putting the doomsayers of the newspaper industry in their place. The future he says is still bright, but it is in case you were in any doubt by now definitely online.

In a speech he has knocked the doomsayers who are predicting the internet will kill off newspapers. He calls them "misguided cynics". The title of the speech ("The Future of Newspapers: Moving Beyond Dead Trees") told you all you needed to know about his thinking (and those of his advisers) about the future of newspapers. He was reminding newspaper journalists almost that they often think too literally about where they are published and that simply because they're no longer "in print (on the printed page)" this does not signal the end - far from it this is only the beginning.

"Too many journalists seem to take a perverse pleasure in ruminating on their pending demise," Murdoch said, "Unlike the doom and gloomers, I believe that newspapers will reach new heights in the 21st century. Readers want what they've always wanted: a source they can trust. That has always been the role of great newspapers in the past. And that role will make newspapers great in the future."

Murdoch has always bet on newspapers, but he has also bet big online and that's what he is still doing so in this speech, which says there are opportunities online as web traffic rises and circulations continue a steady fall as the slow shift of power from the the printed page to online continues. His words also underscored the areas that digital publishers need to focus on if they want to get it right and realise these opportunities.

The march in that direction is irrefutable and quiet unstoppable. That's the obvious bit. Just look at the Christian Science Monitor as an example of this (although really, I sincerely believe that if they had changed the name of that paper a few years ago it would not be ceasing publication) as it goes online only (with a weekly magazine in support).

The challenge/opportunity that Murdoch talks about is how newspapers crack the conundrum of making cash out of their ever mightier online operations as more and more people choose this way to consume the 21st versions of newspapers.

He said the real business of newspaper owners "isn't printing on dead trees". Newspapers themselves are not the medium, but rather the qualities that good newspaper businesses embody: giving readers great journalism and great judgment – words they trust, which is why we all turn to our favoured media brands online when we want the answer to some question of the day. That's clearly where the future growth lies in the most trusted news, best communities, bloggers and other content.

"If papers provide readers with news they can trust, we'll see gains in circulation — on our web pages, through our RSS feeds, in emails delivering customised news and advertising, to mobile phones. In this coming century, the form of delivery may change, but the potential audience for our content will multiply many times over.

"The newspaper, or a very close electronic cousin, will always be around," he said. "It may not be thrown on your front doorstep the way it is today. But the thud it makes as it lands will continue to echo around society and the world."

The point about the qualities of newspaper businesses and how those qualities can be applied to where ever newspaper words appear is really the heart of the debate about the future of newspapers beyond those trees.

Follow me on Twitter

Turning back the digital tide

255762 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:59:00 GMT

The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer has had a historical brainwave. Bizarrely, against all received wisdom and sense, he wants to publish in the paper first. Forget the web, he says, we need to save new content for the newspaper. Unsurprisingly this has sparked a huge barrage of criticism.

You have to feel for the editor in question, Michael Leary, after he announced what he called his "Inquirer first" policy.

He wasn't just talking about one or two stories, but a lot in a memo sent to staff:

"Colleagues - Beginning today, we are adopting an Inquirer first policy for our signature investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features, and reviews of all sorts. What that means is that we won't post those stories online until they're in print."

There seems a bit of an us versus them thing going on with the paper and the website philly.com, as Leary goes on in his memo to say "we'll cooperate with philly.com, as we do now, in preparing extensive online packages to accompany our enterprising work. But we'll make the decision to press the button on the online packages only when readers are able to pick up The Inquirer on their doorstep or on the newsstand".

There is worse to come. While many are madly embracing blogging and the opportunities it offers for breaking news, developing stories and so much more, Leary, who maybe has King Canute's play book, insists that now blogger journalists at the paper cannot go willy nilly blogging until they have consulted editors:

"For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment. Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first. If in doubt, consult your editor. Or me or Chris Krewson".

Maybe his brain took a holiday. Maybe someone told him the web wasn't going to last. Who knows, but bloggers were pretty much united in their derision.

Jeff Jarvis could hardly contain himself and put it as starkly as possible. He did not hold fire:

"You are killing the paper. You might as well just burn the place down. You're setting a match to it. This is insane. Even the slowest, most curmudgeonly, most backward in your dying, suffering industry would not be this stupid anymore. They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past. Protecting the past is no strategy for the future. It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves."

Another blogger, Steve Outing, had this to say: "But this is an argument that has been decided (or so I thought), so it's disheartening to see a major newspaper go backward."

Who knows what Leary thinks of all of this. He has not issued another memo. What we do know is this: in 1983 the paper was selling more than 500,000, in 1999 that figure was a little over 400,000 copies. Today that figure is around 334,509.

It comes, of course against a back drop of a really difficult time in the US newspaper industry as thousands of jobs are lost and pagination is cut.

Co-incidentally it is about what the Guardian now sells. Can you imagine it suddenly turning back the clock? Of course not, nor anyone else for that matter.

Follow me on Twitter