Newspapers and Fat
October 3, 2009
On a podcast, a commentator pointed out that TechDirt took a tough stance toward traditional publishing. I thought TechDirt was much less critical than the addled goose. Of course, TechDirt has more readers and it is a much more professional operation than this Harrod’s Creek marketing publication.
I read “Perhaps the Real Problem with Newspapers Is All that Extra Overhead” and found the write up in line with my views. For me one of the most interesting points in the article was:
In investigating further, he discovered that the paper only had six reporters — despite a staff of 59 people. And, yes, obviously many of those other roles are important — the editors, the printers, etc. But, at some point you have to question the claim that the “reporting” is so expensive. It certainly looks like there’s an awful lot of overhead and inefficiency built into the system. And that’s why newer news startups are able to succeed — because they don’t have that extra legacy layer of fat to deal with.
Let me offer one observation not included in the TechDirt article.
The premise of most newspapers, magazines, and book publishers is that their business model is sound and, despite economic and demographic changes, will serve the companies well. As long as the perception is that the consumer of information will pay for that information, publishing is likely to face consistent profit pressure. When I commuted from Silver Spring to Crystal City in 1979 I would buy a newspaper. In fact, many people on the Metro had a newspaper. When I rode the Metro last week, a few people had a free newspaper and a couple had a copy of the Washington Post. I had my trusty netbook with current info.
I try to understand why publishers believe that an iTunes for news will have a significant impact on newspapers. Keep in mind I agree with the “fat” argument. And I think my business model point amplifies the magnitude of the challenge publishers face.
Google is working on smart software. Individuals are punching out information, shooting pictures, and capturing videos. With smart software assembling info based on traffic or other signals, won’t the machine generated news be good enough? I think it will be for me. I subscribe to four traditional newspapers, and I find myself spending less and less time with these publications each day. The reason is that the info I need is fresher and more easily available from online sources. In fact, I dropped my subscription to the Financial Times because I found the content increasingly irrelevant to my information needs. Little wonder that the most recent promotion for a full year at the rate of $49 went directly into the trash can. I never considered subscribing.
See. I am more harsh than TechDirt.
Stephen Arnold, October 3, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
