Newspapers vs. News search engines

In 1846, as the new technology of the telegraph system was catching on, newspapers pooled their resources to create a more efficient news distribution system. Jim Kennedy, vice president of strategic planning at the Associated Press, which was born out of those efforts, says newspapers are facing a similar challenge today. "Fast forward 168 years later," Kennedy told attendees at a recent Las Vegas gathering, "that's the situation we face today." Translation: It's time for newspapermen to stop fighting among themselves and cooperate if they want to survive in the era of splintering audiences, and search-engine news gateways, such a P's Kennedy was spoke Friday alongside Tom Mohr, President of Knight Ridder Digital and Colby Atwood, vice president at Borrell Associates, a consulting firm specializing in local media. The panel was part of the Interactive Media Conference, hosted by Editor & Publisher and Mediaweek. 

The panel was titled "5-year forecast: See the Future Today," but from the comments made on stage, it might as well have been "The final days of newspapers." For offline newspapers, the writing is on the Web. Email delivery of national and niche news on our computers or on our BlackBerry devices has made it less of a priority to pick up a printed newspaper, especially when traveling. Why bother with the added weight? In 1949, newspapers accounted for 37% of the advertising market in the U.S., according to Atwood. Today, they account for 17% to 18%.

Given the choices people make on the Web, newspapers -- try as they might -- likely never will come close to having the same market share online that they once had in the offline world.

Atwood said that, surprisingly, newspapers still account for 35.8% of the online local ad marketplace, which he estimates to have been $2.4 billion in 2005. About 90% of advertisements in newspapers are local. Increasingly, those offline dollars are seriously at risk.

"There's a big race to go after local ad dollars," said Atwood. "I'd say newspapers will likely lose their share," he said. "They're not as well organized as the large dot-coms." Read rest of column on MarketWatch

Comments

[Ted Shelton]

I enjoyed your "How newspapers can face online rivals" article. Nice questions! You sure didn't let them give simple answers to the questions they were raising.

The biggest thing in my mind, though, is not how will newspapers continue to find readers for the content they produce, after all Google and Yahoo need something to feed the beast. But rather, how will newspapers remain the portal through which readers discover their news? This is the most lucrative part of the news business.

To me there are two unanswered issues -- (1) how will newspapers embrace content from sources other than their own and (2) how will newspapers include their readers in the process rather than continuing to believe that they speak and readers listen?

[Dana Lundy]

Your article, “How Newspapers Can Face Online Rivals Commentary: Is it too late to cooperate?” was very good. I would like to add an additional perspective from my own experience. I get most of my news via various web sources but I also enjoy receiving and reading my local newspaper (The Orange County Register in Southern California). However, newspapers are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to news that is not today’s news. I can go to the Orange County Register online version and see the news there but only for that particular day. If I want to check out something that ran yesterday or last week then I have to pay them to access that article in their archives (if I can find it at all). With the online news carriers you can obtain news from today as well as historically. Until newspapers start providing open access to their previous days’ articles they will never be able to compete effectively in the online environment. I believe it is indicative of a hard-copy format perspective and the newspapers are either unable or unwilling to think like an online news source. It will mean they have to completely change the way they think about news coverage. Similar to when railroads were being replaced with other more efficient modes of transportation and goods transport (i.e., trucks, planes). The railroads tried to come up with better rails. They did not have to ability to change their paradigm which would have allowed them to change their way of thinking. Their entire business model needed changing and few were able to comprehend that. The same is happening today with the newspaper industry. Someone has moved their cheese and most of them are not able to adapt.

[Satya Prabhakar]

There are really two distinct aspects:

-- Ability to gather news, analyze it and distill it into insight

-- Convey it to a ready audience through a distribution medium

As long as media outlets can excel in the former, the world will come to them using whatever medium is most convenient to them. It is not necessary to inextricably club together the asset and the medium. I subscribe to WSJ print edition but read the NY Times online. Interestingly both of them are sustained by advertising dollars; the subscription fees don’t cover even a fraction of the production cost of print.

As long as newspaper outlets of today continue to excel in news, analysis and insight they will flourish provided they can make this available through the medium of consumer's choice. As more and more ad dollars migrate online, they will all make money provided they produce something that is worth consuming. Like your column, for example.

Newspapers should not think of themselves as newspapers, but as newsmedia. That is the secret to their salvation.

Satya

[Bruce Daley]

It is fascinating to read newspapers before and after the advent of advent of the Morse code. Before the telegraph newspapers had limited readership, idiosyncratic editorial policies, and incongruous content – much like blogs today. Because of the initial expense of the telegraph, newspapers flourished as way for many people to share the cost of news from far off places. Newspapers served a real purpose. The biggest battle in the War of 1812 was fought months after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. Except to wrap fish, that purpose may have been served.