The rapid decline of newspapers

Clearly, this is nothing new, but it baffles me how absurdly backwards print media is being in their panic over their failing business models.

The latest this week was the news about the NY Times's new payment scale for the digital versions of their content, which seems grossly overpriced to me.

But what prompted me to post this thread was the urge to share what greeted my wife when she went to read her newspaper of choice, The Washington Post. When she clicked on a story, check out what she was presented with by clicking on the attached file.

I'd like to know what you guys are thinking about this trend.

It is easy to point and laugh at the newspapers struggling to work out how to survive in the 21st century...




...however, what do you think they should do to survive ? It is far from obvious to me what the correct answer is.

I didn't necessarily say I was pointing and laughing, and I didn't say I had an answer, but it's pretty damn clear that they're not doing the correct things.

But can you honestly say that the screenshot I attached is the correct path? I had to scan the page for several seconds before I saw where the actual content was, and even when I did I didn't want to read it because the ads were so glaring.

I just think that I haven't heard any of these companies doing something to battle their decline that doesn't hurt the people they already have.

In no way do I think that ad is the right answer, I honestly have no idea what they can do to save their business.

They may be thinking the same incorrect thoughts many other people are. They shouldn't be trying to save their business. It's already beyond doomed. They need to concentrate on CHANGING their business.

The NYT *could* have launched their pay wall in a sensible fashion and met with welcoming comments from customers. Instead they came up with the idea that if you have a mobile phone and a tablet you should be paying twice for the same content.

I predict an upswing in anti-ad-blocking activities by these web sites, at which point the ad blockers will have to get correspondingly smarter...

In one of my business classes in college I had a professor who said "If you want to survive as a business long term, figure out what someone would have to do to put you out of business, and then do it".

No product or service is going to last forever, and if you try to hang on to it you will lose it.

Too true, and that's why what Bruno said is correct. They have to change their business. In this case, their product is their business model. Their product isn't a newspaper on your porch, it's the whole model. They're fortunate that their product has lasted this long, and now they need to change their product, but that's understandably difficult for a large organization to do. They still need to do it, though.

Yes, but change it to what, exactly?

Talent follows where business models lead: The Media Business Disruptions

Mobile First, and a Mag

RSS Lenin’s Rope

The Publisher’s Dilemma

If I knew, wouldn't they?

An interesting idea a while back was that it would be cheaper to simply send all readers of the NY Times a Kindle, and they'd at least save on the cost of getting a physical paper to those same people. I'm not saying that's what they should do, but it does seem like it costs an incredible amount to make an actual paper.

I LOL'd.

I'm sure someone at the NYT gets it. I just don't know why that isn't being communicated outside the organization.

Their product is their content. Their news reporting and other journalism-derrived content such as columns, etc.

Their product is not paper. Their product is not trucking. Their product is not advertising. Their product is also not a database of subscriber data.

In this respect it's about recognition and realization rather than changing what the product itself is. What needs to change is the process. The productization. How they package, distribute and of course sell their product.

They also need to really understand who their core customers are and figure out the above by catering to them. Are their core customers their readership or advertisers? They must believe it's the readership judging by the way they're pricing their content today, so they're not completely lost.

To me, it seems like they have some idea of what to do, but they left the starting gate with their shoelaces tied together. It really seems like they didn't perform due-dilligence by looking at what other publications were doing, how people consume news/content online and lastly, they didn't run the numbers by anyone with basic math skills.

Gruber points out one of the silliest things about the NYT plan...

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/21/winer-twitter-nyt

...if you want full web/phone/tablet access, the cheapest option it to buy a subscription to the paper edition !

Yeah, that's been the thing all the tech outlets are mocking. Of course, you would have to subscribe to at least two of the digital options to equal the ongoing price of the paper option, but it's still absurd considering how much more expensive the paper is to the NYT themselves.

If* I was subscribing to a newspaper, I'd want it available on both my iPhone and iPad. And I kind of assume that many people who have both a phone and tablet would want to as well.


* unlikely to happen, I prefer to get today's new from the web/BBC Radio 4 than waiting to read about today's new tomorrow

Personally, I think the silliest part of their new plan is the horribly complicated system to keep track of the number of stories you read. Like, you only get five links from Google, 20 from over here, unlimited from over there, etc. Apparently they don't realize that if it's that complicated it's not going to work! Either people will find a way around it to read however much they want, or (more likely) they just won't bother with your content and go somewhere else.

Some interesting thoughts on the plan from the NYT's former design director.

Expanding on Andy's mention of the Gruber coverage... If you do happen to be a numbers type of person you can click a couple of links right off NYT's digital pricing page and come away with an All Digital subscription and 5 weekday delivery for under $15 per month.

That's because if you subscribe to *ANY* paper-based delivery option you automatically get all the digital stuff for free. That's right, ANY. I thought maybe it had to be some premium subscription that would cost $100 per month or something. But nope.

Already happening. Some sites are configured in ways that prevent viewing the desired content if undesired content is blocked.