sethgodin.typepad.com— Years and years after some pundits began predicting the end of newspapers, the newspapers themselves are finally realizing that it's over.
Jan 14, 2009View in Crawl 4
There is an opportunity here. The business of newspapers is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. In print, to have a substantial product everyday meant relying on filler. In my area, the "local" paper became 99% national news and 1% from the region. That kind of ratio assured readers were lost to the NYT or WSJ or USAToday on the Internet. There's no benefit to the repackaged version when you can click the original source just as easily. True, I have nothing for the birdcageNYT, or WSJ or USAToday do not cover the really local news in my area because our neighborhood events have minimal value to anyone outside the region. What if enterprising people realize this leaves a void. Combine real local reporting... right down to the school lunch menus... with ads for area businesses and classifieds and you may have a winning combination.
I don’t think Seth understands why newspapers are still read and will hang around for a while yet. I love trees, not paper, and I work for a newspaper company to migrate business online. I’m no apologist for newspapers. But I’m also a realist. It’s not just about content. Yeah, I can get content online. But I’m a man. I like to touch and smell, too. And I like to feel completely detached sometimes. Books and newspapers allow me to do that- they’re a luxury, not merely old technology we were forced to use and will stop using as soon as we can. If anything will be missed, it’s those things. Like snuffboxes.
Great post,I always loved to read Seth's Blog, this is the first comment I write, I agree that the web is a great source to deliver the information yet costing almost nothing, but on the other hand people still like the old style news paper and is getting used to it, we all knew that we couldn't stay staring at the monitor for more than one hour the refresh rate just stress our eyes, perhaps E-Ink can solve this but when?If this is the idea then Books must had finished long time ago, we have E-Books but still we love just to read the classic book, something is different about it.Seth himself said that his book (Idea Virus) was published as an E-Book (pdf version) online, alot of people download it , later he created a hardcover for it, still people bought it they just love having the printed version. Excellent blog,
The only thing I'll miss about newspapers is the unretractable written word. Think about the 1984 Orwellian disappearance of online stories on Obama? With the printed page, there is proof of things like Obama's meeting with Blago about the senate seat and no webmaster can pull it down.
I cannot argue that the change in format is no surprise as I heard that prediction 25 years ago. (Funny thing is we can't get away from the copier. Every time we find something we like, or need, we copy it.) Like your other readers, I love the internet, and the ability to read about topics the world over.Several points, however, albeit brief.As a former newspaper journalist, I am not surprised that articles about fashion outweigh serious topics, though I think that if you were to really scan the websites of small and medium sized papers, you would sosee something different,.We have beent old for several decades that we should adhere to readers polls and surveys which found people wanted more of those kinds of articles and not just the serious, hard hitting stuff.But, when we did unearth dirt, corruption or injustice, lives were changes for the better. That is a fact.As for profitability, well I would beg to differ about the fact they are not profitable. The problem is they are owned by corporations which, each year, want to see profits of 25 to 30 percent, no matter what the cost. So, to get it, the mandate goes out to cuts staff, cut supplies, reduce news hole AND raise the prices for advertising, all of which means that the big dogs end up with year end bonues of several million dollars. Reading those annual reports year after year AFTER being told that my annual raise would be 2 percent, if that, because of poor revenue streams somewhat irked me.As for tree farmers, well, let me remind you that, unlike cell phones, istuff and other electronic devices, newsprint can be recycled, and unlike those electronic gadgets, require no batteries to operate. I doubt that you do not think twice about the energy you use when you recharge those batteries, or the effect the use of that wasted energy has on the environment. Global warming is real and we will not survive unless we learn to use less. Otherwise, we won't miss much more because we will not be here to enjoy what we have.
rsh28630Jan 14, 2009
There is an opportunity here. The business of newspapers is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. In print, to have a substantial product everyday meant relying on filler. In my area, the "local" paper became 99% national news and 1% from the region. That kind of ratio assured readers were lost to the NYT or WSJ or USAToday on the Internet. There's no benefit to the repackaged version when you can click the original source just as easily. True, I have nothing for the birdcageNYT, or WSJ or USAToday do not cover the really local news in my area because our neighborhood events have minimal value to anyone outside the region. What if enterprising people realize this leaves a void. Combine real local reporting... right down to the school lunch menus... with ads for area businesses and classifieds and you may have a winning combination.
dezwaldJan 14, 2009
I don’t think Seth understands why newspapers are still read and will hang around for a while yet. I love trees, not paper, and I work for a newspaper company to migrate business online. I’m no apologist for newspapers. But I’m also a realist. It’s not just about content. Yeah, I can get content online. But I’m a man. I like to touch and smell, too. And I like to feel completely detached sometimes. Books and newspapers allow me to do that- they’re a luxury, not merely old technology we were forced to use and will stop using as soon as we can. If anything will be missed, it’s those things. Like snuffboxes.
compressedaudioJan 15, 2009
Because 6 cannot be divided by zero, you get to keep the 6!
husseinnasserJan 15, 2009
Great post,I always loved to read Seth's Blog, this is the first comment I write, I agree that the web is a great source to deliver the information yet costing almost nothing, but on the other hand people still like the old style news paper and is getting used to it, we all knew that we couldn't stay staring at the monitor for more than one hour the refresh rate just stress our eyes, perhaps E-Ink can solve this but when?If this is the idea then Books must had finished long time ago, we have E-Books but still we love just to read the classic book, something is different about it.Seth himself said that his book (Idea Virus) was published as an E-Book (pdf version) online, alot of people download it , later he created a hardcover for it, still people bought it they just love having the printed version. Excellent blog,
redgirlrisingJan 15, 2009
The only thing I'll miss about newspapers is the unretractable written word. Think about the 1984 Orwellian disappearance of online stories on Obama? With the printed page, there is proof of things like Obama's meeting with Blago about the senate seat and no webmaster can pull it down.
michel856Jan 17, 2009
I cannot argue that the change in format is no surprise as I heard that prediction 25 years ago. (Funny thing is we can't get away from the copier. Every time we find something we like, or need, we copy it.) Like your other readers, I love the internet, and the ability to read about topics the world over.Several points, however, albeit brief.As a former newspaper journalist, I am not surprised that articles about fashion outweigh serious topics, though I think that if you were to really scan the websites of small and medium sized papers, you would sosee something different,.We have beent old for several decades that we should adhere to readers polls and surveys which found people wanted more of those kinds of articles and not just the serious, hard hitting stuff.But, when we did unearth dirt, corruption or injustice, lives were changes for the better. That is a fact.As for profitability, well I would beg to differ about the fact they are not profitable. The problem is they are owned by corporations which, each year, want to see profits of 25 to 30 percent, no matter what the cost. So, to get it, the mandate goes out to cuts staff, cut supplies, reduce news hole AND raise the prices for advertising, all of which means that the big dogs end up with year end bonues of several million dollars. Reading those annual reports year after year AFTER being told that my annual raise would be 2 percent, if that, because of poor revenue streams somewhat irked me.As for tree farmers, well, let me remind you that, unlike cell phones, istuff and other electronic devices, newsprint can be recycled, and unlike those electronic gadgets, require no batteries to operate. I doubt that you do not think twice about the energy you use when you recharge those batteries, or the effect the use of that wasted energy has on the environment. Global warming is real and we will not survive unless we learn to use less. Otherwise, we won't miss much more because we will not be here to enjoy what we have.
quickwitApr 2, 2009
I've tried doing online crossword puzzles, and it's just not the same.