Amid speculation the San Francisco Chronicle is struggling, Robert Scoble has waded into the discussion by declaring newspapers are dead. Robert, I hate to call you on it but you’re wrong. You’re wrong to make a broad generalization that newspapers aren’t starting to embrace the Web, you’re wrong to assume newspapers are going the way of the do-do bird.
Part of Scoble’s problem is he’s really not representative of the general public and he’s basing his thesis on what’s happening in his own backyard. First, Scoble’s a geek (and that’s not meant to be a criticism). Like a lot of tech savvy people, I suspect he gets most, if not all, of his news online so I’d be surprised he subscribed to a newspaper. Second, San Francisco’s newspaper market has been struggling for years, which I guess would lead many people in Silicon Valley to assume the newspaper business, in general, is struggling.
Truth be told, newspapers have lost readers to the Web and circulation has been under pressure. But the industry is still selling millions of papers a day. In some markets such as Toronto and London, the newspaper industry is thriving with a variety of dailies battling for attention. Then, you’ve got the free daily explosion happening around the world.
For people into statistics, consider this: according to the World Association of Newspapers, 450 million newspapers a day are sold around the world; free daily circulation doubled between 2001 and 2005 to 28 million; newspaper circulation in North America and Europe has increased 0.7% and 2.12% respectively over the past five years – most of it probably due to free dailies such as Metro.
And newspapers are changing their stripes, albeit not as fast as they probably should. If you look at the National Post over the past six months, it has aggressively embraced the Web with the launch of more blogs and making more content available online. Meanwhile, the Globe & Mail expects to have 100,000 comments in March. And you have to admire how major players such as the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are pushing hard online to complement their strong print presences.
One of the biggest flaws in the newspapers are dead argument is the assumption that the print format is going away. This simply isn’t accurate. What’s really happening is newspapers are evolving into multi-media entities that use newsprint and the Web (text, podcasts, blogs and, fairly soon, video) to reach out to readers and advertisers.
Unlike Scoble, I don’t see the future of newspapers as doom and gloom – a viewpoint that may come from spending more than 15 years as a daily newspaper journalist. Newspapers aren’t dead; they’re just changing with the times.
Note: Someone who gets the future of newspapers is Dave Winer, who offered up some solid counsel on what newspapers need to do. Doc Serles has a few suggestions for how newspapers can save themselves, while Mathew Ingram makes a great point that there’s too much focus on “papers” when people look at the future of newspaper publishers.
9 Comments
Maybe, Mark. But in a presentation on the Future of Media I gave last week I opened with a note about my brunch last Sunday, at a joint on Roncesvalles called Tinto. Free wireless, lots of laptops, and not a newspaper open in the joint. On a Sunday! Oh, and everyone was under 40. Oh, and no one was viewing Canadian content (they were listening to music, chatting, reading feeds and surfing – but not (and I walked behind each of them to see – how weird was *that*) anything Canadian.) (Oh, and Macs were 3:1
)
I see this all the time now in my ‘hood. So other than the waiting rooms of offices on Bay Street, and all the free papers I see strewn on the floor of subway trains, and folks over 40, who the heck is reading newspapers?
Well, someone is reading newspapers given circulation hasn’t totally fallen through the floor.
When it comes to the future of newspapers, I’ve been saying for a long time that they have to get away from the “news”, which has become a commodity because of the Web, and focus on offering perspective and insight – something the Web doesn’t do particularly well. Lookiat how the NYT on Sunday is still a must-read.
Not to suggest newspapers can see a growth spurt just because they make an editorial shift but there is no reason they can’t resonate with readers by offering something different than what’s available online.
I said newspapers were dead, not that newspaper brands were dead.
I seriously doubt that many newspapers will survive the next 20 years. The economics are simply against them and readers are going to tire of having the news 10 to 24 hours after everyone else does. Especially as there’s more and more wireless reading devices with sharp screens.
Robert: I think you’re far too optimistic about the power of technology to sway readers away from paper. In many ways, newspapers are the same as books. Despite all the investment in eBooks, paper-based books continue to thrive. If you think about it, the newspaper is a very efficient vehicle to quickly search and find the information you want, which is why it will continue to exist while newspaper publishers embrace technology to stay current and relevant.
An opinion I’ve had for years about the mortality of the newspaper industry is that “It’s not the profession, it’s the platform.” Companies will need to change, but the old medium will surely be obsolete in a few years on a mainstream level. Techies and the blogging crowd decry it’s current doom, but it’s not at that point yet. Certain market segments and non-connected audiences still rely on, pay for, and enjoy their existence.
Newspapers, not being an always-on medium, can’t keep up with emerging technologies for immediacy and response. And ease of multimedia and reduced costs for consumer devices is making them more and more obsolete. Sure, they still make a strong case for mobility/portability and reliability, but the gap’s closing fast.
Now, newspaper companies may change and embrace and implement multimedia (podcasting, video, blogging, RSS, social media), but the fundamental flaw of the print industry as a platform for gathering/reporting the news hasn’t got much longer, I believe.
Newspapers are dead because their traditional advertising model has gone away. Autos. real estate is all online. Print liner ads are next to useless as a standalone vehicle. The revenue has gone and newspapers are desparately trying to find a replacement. They need to find a new mix of gathering eyeballs (as Mark has outlined with some examples) with both online and offline initiatives and then deliver great advertising content online with a method to profitably charge for it.
Their brands are strong with plenty of assets to leverage in this new environment of news reader’s behaviours. If they have the will, capability, and execution focus to deliver a new model in this different market, then they will survive. Still an unknown as to whether they will be successful.
I think this is a really tough issue to debate for two reasons:
1. The newspapers won’t go without a fight.
2. Nobody can say for sure where technology will lead us.
Scoble’s clarified his viewpoint and I personally agree with him. (disclaimer related to Mark’s previous post: I’m a techie who reads most of my news online).
That being said, I also love reading the newspaper when I can. I can’t specifically put my finger on it, but I find quietly absorbing the news about my local environment while sitting in a coffee shop very relaxing. I probably get my hands on a paper every couple of weeks or so… and I rarely pay for it.
As our youth grow older and technology matures (ie. screen refresh rates compare to actual paper, devices become thinner, etc.) I can see Scoble’s reality of newspapers fading in 20 years. They won’t be dead like Robert suggests, but I bet there won’t be enough full time readers and as a result advertisers to subsidize the cost of producing a physical product.
I agree with both Mark and Rob.
Mark,
I agree that papers still stand as a viable source for news to most, and as a physical element they are more familiar to everyone. Not to mention the fact that I find newspapers are more personal to a community. Even if it’s a local blog online, its still in “international waters” so the paper really keeps that “home” feeling alive.
Rob,
I can’t agree more with your comment about the time lapse. Let’s face it, newspapers are OLD NEWS. When friends and family read the paper in the morning and tell me about something they’ve read, I think of how “yesterday” that was and how much has transpired since.
What ever happened to Xerox making that ePaper technology?…
End game for newspaper industry newsletter
http://paulconley.blogspot.com/2007/03/end-game-for-newspaper-industry.html
10 Trackbacks
[...] friend and mesh partner Mark Evans notes that the latest newspaper circulation numbers look OK, particularly in Canada. I personally [...]
[...] to do — and some of it, well, not so much. Like my friend Mark Evans, who has a long post here, I think Robert Scoble falls into the not-so-much category with his post about how newspapers are [...]
[...] to do — and some of it, well, not so much. Like my friend Mark Evans, who has a long post here, I think Robert Scoble falls into the not-so-much category with his post about how newspapers are [...]
[...] Evans takes the opposite tack in proclaiming that Scoble is wrong. However he suggests that circulation figures show that newspapers are growing. He then seems to [...]
[...] Mark Evans: Scoble you’re wrong: Newspapers aren’t dead. [...]
[...] Evans, a former journalist, and now online tech blogger, doesn’t agree with Scoble’s take… Part of Scoble’s problem is he’s really not representative of the general public and [...]
[...] or have as wide a circulation. They’ll find their own niche, whether it be in a completely free format or otherwise. Much like older media (such as the radio), it will evolve because it has to. But I [...]
[...] Mark Evans – Scoble, You’re Wrong: Newspapers Aren’t Dead [...]
[...] Mark Evans – Scoble, You’re Wrong: Newspapers Aren’t Dead [...]
[...] Mark Evans – Scoble, You’re Wrong: Newspapers Aren’t Dead [...]