Ad revenues plunge for newspapers
posted at 9:22 pm on March 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Now before we get absorbed in the usual schadenfreude, let’s remember that most of us are news junkies. Having the newspaper industry see its worst ad revenue falloff in 50 years means that resources for responsible, in-depth reporting will likely disappear:
The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.
According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 — the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.
The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.
Total advertising revenue in 2007 — including online revenue — decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.
What will we get in its place? We’ll see more celebrity gossip and heavier reliance on wire services for reporting. Traditional city beats will go untended. Sports will get boosted. In other words, more fluff and less journalism.
It’s not good news, but it’s mostly self-inflicted. If the news industry had focused on serious, objective reporting, people would still rely on them for information. Instead, most newspapers turned into preachy, biased megaphones for the pet issues of their publishers. Most will recall the New York Times’ ridiculous obsession with the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, which resulted in a burst bubble when it turned out that the only person in the nation who cared about it was Howell Raines. Locally, the Star Tribune has gone out of its way to antagonize anyone to the right of Al Franken. Patterico has thoroughly documented the decline of the Los Angeles Times, and the story is the same all around the country.
With their credibility shot and most people turned off by their approach to the news, it’s small wonder that advertisers don’t want to be associated with the product. Hugh Hewitt offers a few suggestions to the papers on how to accelerate the decline — basically, not to learn the lesson and continue operating as they do now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Instapundit posted the email I sent him earlier:
Last time I put a ‘help wanted’ ad in my local paper, it cost me about $500. I got 6 faxes, 5 were unqualified for the job. I put an ad on Craigslist for free and got about 40 resumes. About 10 qualified for the job. Why would I ever use a newspaper again? Classified ads were the biggest drop, 16.5% or so. Just another dinosaur dying.
I think the drop in ad revenue also comes from the fact that you can get more targeted visitors from internet advertising. That’s why their web revenue is increasing. Instead of being forced to place ads in the “global news” section of the paper to get people staring at your ad; you can only show ads to people who are reading about what you are selling - cars, gardening or whatever. Its simply more cost effective.
lorien1973 on March 28, 2008 at 9:28 PM
We also live in a culture becoming lazier by the day. Most would rather have their information spoon fed to them verbally. Reading is becoming a thing of the past much like the high school graduate.
repvoter on March 28, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I’d agree with your general premise that the drop in revenue isn’t good news, except that I see no effort afoot to change course by the newspaper industry re: the above quote. Something will fill the void. Maybe it already has.
SouthernGent on March 28, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Not so much regarding the responsible part.
Otherwise, I mainly feel the financial failure within a free market of a partisan media that palms itself off as objective journalism is a quite good validation of free markets.
petefrt on March 28, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Unbiased news? The market will analyze why newspapers fail then provide something (like the truth) that will sell.
Zorro on March 28, 2008 at 9:38 PM
What are these so called “Newspapers” you speak of?
TheSitRep on March 28, 2008 at 9:40 PM
snarktastic!
RushBaby on March 28, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Last time I bought the newspaper was 4 years ago and I had to do it to get some change from the store.
Most paper materials that I read are the mail.
Newspapers are irrelevant to me, they’re like the Queen of England.
Indy Conservative on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 PM
I can attest to the revenue dropping — like I said in the headline link, this is the reason I got laid off. Our boss had told everyone in the newsroom that we would be getting raises as soon as revenue picked up, but it never did. In the entire time I was there (close to 3 years) I never got a raise.
And I can also attest to the “whims” of the publisher and editors, as well. There were times where I would try to localize a national news story, but my editors would shoot me down. In the meantime, the weekend reporter would be forced to cover several craft fairs that had nothing to do with “news.”
Despite the layoff, I’m happy to be out of there. Cold have picked a better time to do it, however, but I’m happy.
ScoopPC11 on March 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Losses would have been much worse if it weren’t for the money that rolled in from the full page “General Betray Us” ads.
fogw on March 28, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Call Rupert and fire every liberal news exec.
There’s something enjoyable about sitting down with a coffa cupee and reading the paper but not with bias slapping you in the face every article, even left leaner’s get tired of it.
Speakup on March 28, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Didn’t MoveOn.org get a discount?
terryannonline on March 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM
i love the picture used for this post. lol!
Drunk Report on March 28, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Since I can get every Democratic Party talking point (that I don’t want) from TV, and all the sports news I need on the internet, and all my supermarket coupons at the store, for free, what do I need the Star Tribune for? It’s just one more recyclable that I have to get rid of. No thanks.
RBMN on March 28, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I think morning news TV shows are next…
d1carter on March 28, 2008 at 9:59 PM
well…if they dissapear I will have to buy toilet paper
Ropera on March 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Newspapers are obsolete. It’s all about the internet now.
SoulGlo on March 28, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Yup, until they got caught. Then the NYT gave them the one finger discount.
fogw on March 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I got a phone-call from a lady from the New York Times asking me if I’d like to subscribe. When I said “no, thank you” she asked “but how will you stay current on the news?”
I laughed a big “ha” and answered, “why, the internet of course.”
She gave me a cold “thank you” and hung up.
Tzetzes on March 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Oh please. Yes, that’s exactly right. People aren’t reading newspapers anymore because they’re pining for the heavy hitting days of Ed Murrow. I guess that’s why Rupert Murdoch has thrived in the news business; he’s not at all interested in news as a “preachy biased megaphone for pet issues” now, is he?
People want fluff. They want sports, celebrity gossip, and easily digestible stories with an us-them conflict rather than analysis-heavy stories about the ambiguous and complicated issues of the day. People want preachy biased megaphones. Just look at the blogosphere.
Grow Fins on March 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM
My point being (poorly expressed though it may be), that the blog world is thriving precisely because people want partisan “news” and “facts” to fit their preconceived narrative of how the world works (I mean, just look at the front page stories on HA and you get a quick pulse-take of what concerns conservatives).
Newspapers are declining because there are other, more interactive and fun alternatives out there, NOT because they’ve become preachy and biased.
Grow Fins on March 28, 2008 at 10:13 PM
It goes without saying that in the longer term, print media will become a shadow of its former self, giving way to news and commentary on TV, radio and digital.
In the shorter term, during its declining years, my bet and hope is that print media will go European. That is to say, print media and channels will become open and honest about their political preferences, and drop all pretense to the preposterous notion of “objective journalism.” Most have no problem, for example, with NBC if it represents itself as a leftist network. But so long as it presents its leftist spin on events of our time as objective journalism, I’ll cheer it’s continuing descent into bankruptcy.
petefrt on March 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM
People want fluff. They want sports, celebrity gossip, and easily digestible stories with an us-them conflict rather than analysis-heavy stories about the ambiguous and complicated issues of the day. People want preachy biased megaphones. Just look at the blogosphere.
Grow Fins on March 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Speaking for yourself I presume…
Keemo on March 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Time for a new media, one that focuses on the truth. It would fly to the high time!
allrsn on March 28, 2008 at 10:22 PM
The news industry in America and around the globe is failing due to a lack of credibility coupled with a biased agenda. Realities brought on by events such as Rathergate have had damaging results beyond what any of the media heads could have ever imagined. Liberals live in a bubble, they won’t even hang out with people who are not like minded. A total disconnect has taken place within this industry. Once again, Liberalism fails in every single application.
Keemo on March 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I understand your points of caution Mr. Morrissey, but I can’t help but be glad of this. The only way the media will ever regain some semblance of quality is if it’s dragged there kicking and screaming by the free market. At least that’s what I think.
Grayson on March 28, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Legit points Ed. But don’t we deserve the news without bias? That’s the newspaper man’s creed isn’t it? Without passion or predujice?
Maybe they will finally start to deliver the product they promised and made free press the great thing that it is, and not what they have made it in the last few years before the internet.
When major papers are undone by regular people on the internet. Maybe it’s time they realize the whole truth is always better than the half truth, or on some occasions false implications.
Maybe if they did that, this wouldn’t be happening.
Hog Wild on March 28, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I stuffed this up public editor Tim McNulty’s ass yesterday, along with some rude observations about the Chicago Tribune performing editorial fellatio on Obama for the past year, while getting abused on the real stories behind the glitz by the new media (i.e., Wright, Rezko, Obama’s non-existent voting record, etc.).
He hasn’t gotten back to me yet; probably still formulating his response…
Jaibones on March 28, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Newspapers and MSM spokesholes on T.V. are NOT HONEST BROKERS of truthful information to the public! That’s the reason they’re dying. They still have some influence however, but it’s waning significantly now…bye bye MSM…bye bye
DfDeportation on March 28, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I was in the newspaper business, but got out over a decade ago, when I saw the writing on the wall. A combination of more ads than content (and biased content at that), and lack of timeliness are killing the papers. Used to be, you would get headlines on the TV or radio, then read the paper to get details. Now, the papers have less detail, and are way too slow to keep up with the news.
Think_b4_speaking on March 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM
It’s both liberal bias and the numerous alternatives.
I read the newspaper, front to back, every day for at least 35 years. Finally about 6 years ago I could no longer stand the liberal bias and quit. Now it’s wonderful schadenfreude watching them squirm.
RJL on March 29, 2008 at 12:01 AM
.
newspaper industry = toilet paper
Problem solved,
Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Everyone’s missing the point. There’s a one word reason for drop in ad revenue:
Craigslist
It’s devastated classified advertising. It may also put all those free local lefty weeklies out of business as well.
rokemronnie on March 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Ed…I think you give advertisers too much credit for integrity. It’s all about the circulation.
flipflop on March 29, 2008 at 12:40 AM
They ask for it.
Johan Klaus on March 29, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I need them for packing dinner plates to move..
Thankfully there is the recycle bins on Michigan State campus with ‘The State News’ waiting to be picked up..
DaveC on March 29, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I can barely stand to get my local rag, the San Jose Mercury News. They keep trying to be “relevant” and “worldly” by having international and national news that I’ve generally already seen three days before. The op-ed pages have never seen a tax they didn’t like, or given the benefit of the doubt for disposition of any assets to the persons that earned or created them. The business section is half stock quotes — hello???? someone who can afford stock can afford to get quotes online… They’ve even gone so far as to have half as many comics on Sunday because color ink costs twice as much.
When it comes to having happy customers, they continually offer low-price teaser rates in large, prominent booths at all sorts of events…but never give a break to long-time subscibers. This is especially galling to those of us who remember the 80’s when there was more newsprint in the Sunday paper than two full weeks of today’s version — and it cost less than one Sunday paper today!
There’s an old joke about the Wall Street Journal reporting on Armageddon — a note in column three saying, “End of the World reported from Jerusalem. See page A12 for the effect on hog futures.” It’s funny, but it’s true — the WSJ is a newspaper about business, and everything is linked to its business ramifications. Why can’t the San Jose paper do that? Why aren’t things linked to the San Jose area? Why pull old stuff from the wire services and quote it verbatim? How about “Famine in Ethiopia. South Bay home to many Ethiopian immigrants — see page A12″?
Every time I get nailed in traffic, and wonder just what the heck that was all about, there’s never a story in the newspaper about it. Why is it that I only hear about the President visiting some local chip designers on the radio when I’m stuck in the backup from the motorcade?
Why does the front page read like the op-ed section, and the op-ed section like Democratic Party press releases? The local indie weekly has a touch of Libertarianism that makes them less knee-jerk statist than the Merc. And, maybe, they should consider putting stuff in their rag so people can feel catered-to a little bit, like real valued customers — like a full set of color comics on Sunday.
In the meantime, hardly a week goes by that I don’t think of calling them up and canceling….and I’ve been reading daily papers for decades.
cthulhu on March 29, 2008 at 1:18 AM
I suppose I should also make the link explicit that I had in the back of my mind during that rant…
The old-style newspaper had content that people wanted to attract eyeballs. They then sold the eyeballs to people who had ads. That way, both the consumer and the advertiser would be willing to pay the newspaper.
Now, the content is largely outdated or irrelevant to the consumers, so there are fewer eyeballs. The advertisers, then, aren’t willing to pay as much for their ads.
As a consumer, I’d want to have the paper in my house for content that I cared about, and then I might peruse the ads. Now, there is so much of the paper that goes straight into the recycling bin that I wonder why I’m subscribing at all.
cthulhu on March 29, 2008 at 1:24 AM
I live in a small town in Ontario, and we have one of the small weekly local papers to which we subscribe; usually between 16 to 24 pages. When I lived in Ohio, I had it delivered when I became homesick.
I have more respect for that publication than I do for any large urban daily. There would be in depth analysis of municipal budget talks, stories relating to local businesses and issues that do affect day to day life in the community. It’s a great source to find out how government dollars are being spent in the community.
The weekly small town publications may be the ultimate survivors of newspaper publishing since they already serve the ultimate niche markets and always have. With ALL of the information available on the internet, there is no better source for the local news for my very small town and the surrounding communities.
Unless there’s somewhere on the Internet where I can find out my brother bowled 623 last week.
Canadian Infidel on March 29, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Before getting too high on the decline of liberal newspapers, realize that Google News, Yahoo News, CNN.com (and ebay/Craiglist) are all operated by the most extreme liberals in the world. They are making more than the newspapers ever did, and it’s going into the pockets of MoveOn and other nefarious groups. We are still getting screwed by the news people, they just wear Birkenstocks to work.
leftnomore on March 29, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Our major newspapers are like PRAVDA. Didn’t worry about its demise either.
JiangxiDad on March 29, 2008 at 7:50 AM
LOL. I feel your pain, and used to live there so know ur rag. Have my own here in NY. I have unsubscribed to every newspaper and magazine that I previously read, including the WSJ. Apart from the offensive content of the editorials and articles, as you say it’s old by the time the paper arrives. Nope, I only get my news online now.It may be biased, but at least it’s new. I’ve read the newspaper since I was around 8. Unfortunately, my kids don’t have one to read. A conservative weekly magazine for kids would be great.
JiangxiDad on March 29, 2008 at 7:57 AM
People like Michael Yon are the future of reporting.
Dump the MSM.
RobCon on March 29, 2008 at 8:25 AM
He says on a website one mostly has to read.
So, where do I send you the bill to clean the coffee off my keyboard and monitor?
Kafir on March 29, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Please, please please don’t let The Washington Post fold! It’s still the only ‘news’paper with five (5) pages of comics - 3 for the strips and 2 for Op-Ed.
In this electronic age, where information is available virtually instantaneously, newspapers are dinosaurs with small brains, lumbering bodies and fading relevance. Newspapers used to form public opinion but no longer and they can’ adapt to the new reality. The discerning public doesn’t mind viewing biased Internet sites primarily because such sites hold the same values or opinions.
Of course, the New Internet Media will eventually go the same way.
SeniorD on March 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I relish the semi annual drive the local lib rag has through my neighborhood and via phone , it gives me a chance to laugh in their face and tell them how much they suck.
Ka-Bar03 on March 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM
STOP THE PRESSES! (please)
christophercube on March 29, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I own an advertising business, and I can tell you that while some of this may have to do with newspaper content, it also has to do with the economy.
Radio stations are being hit as well - even the conservative talk radio stations that carry syndicated shows like Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin/etc. Stations (and other media) are scrambling to pickup advertisers that you’d never have heard on there a year ago; prices are being cut to get advertisers in, so ads are there (mostly) but revenues are down.
Midas on March 29, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Dear Ed,
Considering what most newspapers print these days, your “plunger” metaphor was most appropriate.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on March 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM