Quantcast

The Money Blogs is the source for Blogs about the latest financial and stock market news with rss feeds

Stock Investing > The Longish View

Two Paths for the News Business: Retrenchment versus Reshaping

Tom Hughes | Thu, 10/30/2008 - 12:52pm | Christian Science Monitor, Conde Nast, NWS, NYT, online publishing |  5 comments

Rank this post

3

5 comments

The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times are venerable, first-tier journalistic enterprises.  The news about the news business, though, is generally downbeat: ad revenues going to the web, attention spans shrinking, and younger audiences ignoring "mainstream media."  The Monitor's response is to cut costs and go web-only, as they describe here.  Understandable, and kind of inevitable-feeling, don't you think?  Similarly, Conde Nast is implementing five percent cuts across the board (from Media Bistro, here).

The Times' response, though, is much more interesting and, I think, forward-looking.  They are taking all their content -- much of it best-of-breed -- and exposing it in APIs for the rest of the Internet to consume and re-purpose.  This is a bolder, harder-to-explain, but ultimately much more promising approach.  You can see example posts from their "Open" blog here (Campaign Finance data API) and here (Moview Reviews).

The Times' strategy, as I see it, is to invest to exploit the upside of the Internet: more connections to more audiences in more ways (at lower costs).  The "dead trees" business is, of course, threatened; but journalism was never meant to be about printing presses.  The presses, and their massive capital requirements, were an Industrial Age artifact that tended to lower profits and entrench incumbents (creating the "press lords" like Beaverbrook and now Murdoch, as a side effect).  The Times has always been about its writers (and photographers and other creative individuals); human and intellectual capital, and reputation capital, not physical capital.  If the Internet puts a premium on that intangible capital, and the resulting companies are smaller, they should be more profitable.  It's a long shot -- market forces may drive NYT to cut costs at all costs, and sacrifice its long-term future for its near-term survival -- but we can hope, and watch.

Comments

Please or register to post comments.

asian fashion

alyssa | December 11, 2009, 8:54 am

The Times' strategy, as I see it, is to invest to exploit the upside of the Internet: more connections to more audiences in more ways (at lower costs). The "dead trees" business is, of course, threatened; but journalism was never meant to be about printing presses. The presses, and their massive capital requirements, were an Industrial Age artifact that tended to lower profits and entrench incumbents (creating the "press lords" like Beaverbrook and now Murdoch, as a side effect). The Times has always been about its writers (and photographers and other creative individuals); human and intellectual capital, and reputation capital, not physical capital. If the Internet puts a premium on that intangible capital, and the resulting companies are smaller, they should be more profitable. It's a long shot -- market forces may drive NYT to cut costs at all costs, and sacrifice its long-term future for its near-term survival -- but we can hope, and watch.

How to be safe in troubled times

John Morley | June 9, 2009, 12:50 pm

How to be SAFE in troubled times. Fear of 'job-loss" is a universal element in the minds of millions of people worldwide, because of the basic system that creates the "employee" mindset. Systematic programming over a long period of time, coupled with a manipulative education system ensures that fear is permanently embedded. From being small children to adults, the GRADING/CHANELLING and SCREENING process systematically and progressively reduces the options of an individual to the point of needle point specialization. The result is .. large numbers of highly trained, but very limited individuals at the mercy of market forces which are beyond their own control. The obligatory letter of EMPLOYEE UNDERTAKING, not to engage in other income generating activities whilst employed, sets the stage for a life of exclusive servitude. Routinely creating a mindset that has the 'expected outcome' of a single dependency income is the root cause of unlimited personal distress. Even though the risk of financial disaster is exceptionally high, it is sought after and welcomed year after year by the millions of new and willing job seekers. In economically difficult times the truth becomes self-evident. THE SYSTEM IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED to an extent that verges on immoral. The FACT is.. Everybody should have at least THREE INCOME SOURCES. It is folly to rely on a single dependency income from a source outside your control. It is silly to expect an employer to put your interest before that of the Company. It is idealistic to believe that the Government will maintain your standard of living. It is foolish to think it only happens to OTHER people. Under the generally accepted system MOST employed people are only three paychecks away from losing their homes. Is it any wonder that in these troubled times, the fear of retrenchment tops the list of stressors. The solution is not difficult. It does however require a change of mindset. It is NECESSARY to replace the EMPLOYEE mindset with an entrepreneurial mindset .. even if you have to bend the rules. Bad rules that place you at risk to benefit somebody else NEED to be broken. For the sake of your family, your sanity and your future prosperity you must re-focus attention onto the real issues. To get what YOU want you have to work with YOUR rules. AT LEAST three sources of income are necessary for security. If your JOB FAILS its ok ..If you career fails its ok ...if your business fails its ok.. because the other TWO will sustain you. Make your additional income sources in diverse industries. Leave the fear behind ..YOU don't need it. There are dozens of opportunities available to you every day ..if you look beyond the blinkered tunelled view of an employee. Don't place your future in the hands of other people .. They will eventually abuse you. Don't place your families future in the realms of hope and prayer.. They depend on YOU. Making small changes can give big results .. Learning the RIGHT skills is the key to financial security. No point learning how to mend shoes when everybody throws old shoes away. Good industries to build income streams are .. "Health" .. "Leisure" .. "Telecommunications" .. Become a "middle-man" .. get paid for talking and organizing .. Teach other people how to work and get paid for what they do. Look at leverage industries and marketing. There are many avenues available to you.. if you take off the blinkers. Eventually you could find that retrenchment was the best thing that ever happened to you. Perhaps it just opened the door to a better life that you otherwise never would have found. Reach out with hope ..a world of opportunity is waiting.. John Morley ..info@pgn.co.za

There's so much to say on

collardosblog | October 30, 2008, 1:48 pm

There's so much to say on this topic, I may end up writing an entire blog on the matter myself. You hit at something fundamental that is the reason, I believe that the first-tier journalism sources have a decaying revenue stream. The investment that the Times has put into its "human and intellectual capital and reputation capital" is the first thing that major news conglomerates look to cut in order to squeeze profit from acquired presses. As an example, The Daily Breeze, our local paper in the South Bay (Southern California costline) was acquired by Knight Ridder and a friend of mine almost lost his job as a local sports reporter because they wanted to cut the department and replace it with an Associated Press sports feed. Can you imagine what that would do to a local paper's reputation if it suddenly couldn't report on the high school football games being played across the street from their headquarters? The example is small and anecdotal I know, but it carries weight when you think of the current drift that American media has been set afloat on over the last few decades.

"Decaying revenue stream" is quite right

tmcmh | October 31, 2008, 12:52 pm

That's the essential problem. The surviving businesses will probably be smaller than they are today because there are so many other non-newspaper ways to deliver ads; so the drama is to see which companies self-destruct and which ones re-invent themselves. I like your local-news example too, and I think there's a ray of hope there. As national media shrinks and re-shapes, I think (hope) that opens up the market for community media. They don't have the cost structure of the national companies, and the local papers (if they're well run) earn and keep the loyalty of local advertisers. I know in my neighborhood (Lower Manhattan, New York City), we have three (3!) local weeklies. There's not enough news to keep them interesting, but there seems to be enough ad spend to keep them from dying. My apartment building gets less and less home-delivered NYTimes and WSJ, but everyone still grabs a Downtown Express, a Tribeca Trib, or a Battery Park Broadsheet when they're left in the lobby.