Trashy Ads

[Jstpssng]

There was a time when the only outlet for advertising was newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. So, one advertising pie with 4 slices. Newspapers generally got the largest slice.

Newspaper subscriptions did not cover the cost of the paper it was printed on. That was all covered by advertising revenue. The more paid subscribers you had, the more money you could charge for advertising in your newspaper, the more money you had to spend on a newsroom with reporters, photographers, editors, etc. And the more money you had to spend on production and delivery expenses.

In the early 2000s, along came Craig's List. Craig's list made its money by charging low fees for Employment ads. They provided free Classified ads. That was the first big nail in the Newspaper coffin, as Classified Advertising was most newspapers' bread and butter.

Anyone remember the huge classified sections in your Sunday papers?

Anyhow, as Craig's List ate into newspapers' revenue stream, other forms of on-line advertising also popped up (literally, pop-up ads). Newspapers went digital in an attempt to reach the on-line audience, where they can only charge pennies for on-line ads VS dollars for printed ads, their revenues suffered even more, and there you go. Print subscribers left in droves for 'free' content on-line (which was usually scoured from Newspaper websites). As newspapers could not afford to print papers, or deliver them to former outskirt customers, their paid subscriber numbers dropped, and they had to charge less for printed advertising. The toilet started flushing on the expenses, and down the tubes they go, one by one.

Advertising is still a source of income for newspapers, but in recent years, for the first time in history, subscriber fees (both digital and print) started to be their largest source of income. And it's pennies VS what they used to bring in. In many cases it is no longer enough to support a robust newsroom and production costs... And they go out of business.

Yes. However, we don't even get print editions here anymore; I have to go online, to recieve a lesser version. Then it's so laden with ads that I sometimes can't even load the news article. I don't plan to donate even more money.

 

[MossRoad]

Yes. However, we don't even get print editions here anymore; I have to go online, to recieve a lesser version. Then it's so laden with ads that I sometimes can't even load the news article. I don't plan to donate even more money.

Yes, I mentioned that in the 5th paragraph.

As for lesser version, that's a shame. Our local paper has a digital paper that looks exactly like the print version. You can select each article for a larger view, scroll pages, etc.

 

[MossRoad]

And there's almost always additional content, photos and videos on each story. It's actually MORE than you get from the print subscription. It's free with a print subscription. Not sure what it would cost for just a digital subscription.

 

[ultrarunner]

There was a time when the only outlet for advertising was newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. So, one advertising pie with 4 slices. Newspapers generally got the largest slice.

Newspaper subscriptions did not cover the cost of the paper it was printed on. That was all covered by advertising revenue. The more paid subscribers you had, the more money you could charge for advertising in your newspaper, the more money you had to spend on a newsroom with reporters, photographers, editors, etc. And the more money you had to spend on production and delivery expenses.

In the early 2000s, along came Craig's List. Craig's list made its money by charging low fees for Employment ads. They provided free Classified ads. That was the first big nail in the Newspaper coffin, as Classified Advertising was most newspapers' bread and butter.

Anyone remember the huge classified sections in your Sunday papers?

Anyhow, as Craig's List ate into newspapers' revenue stream, other forms of on-line advertising also popped up (literally, pop-up ads). Newspapers went digital in an attempt to reach the on-line audience, where they can only charge pennies for on-line ads VS dollars for printed ads, their revenues suffered even more, and there you go. Print subscribers left in droves for 'free' content on-line (which was usually scoured from Newspaper websites). As newspapers could not afford to print papers, or deliver them to former outskirt customers, their paid subscriber numbers dropped, and they had to charge less for printed advertising. The toilet started flushing on the expenses, and down the tubes they go, one by one.

Advertising is still a source of income for newspapers, but in recent years, for the first time in history, subscriber fees (both digital and print) started to be their largest source of income. And it's pennies VS what they used to bring in. In many cases it is no longer enough to support a robust newsroom and production costs... And they go out of business.

$69 per month for home delivery SF Chronicle and now only a few much reduced pages I think someone is making money?

 

[MossRoad]

$69 per month for home delivery SF Chronicle and now only a few much reduced pages I think someone is making money?

I pay $67 per year. That's the new subscriber rate. I used to get it for $50 per year as retired employee, but the sold the company twice and Gannett no longer offers that to past employees of two generation ago owners.

 

[ultrarunner]

I'm thinking at 69 per month they want to end home delivery?

 

[MossRoad]

I'm thinking at 69 per month they want to end home delivery?

Could be.

The paper I worked for hired a company that had "the algorithm" that was supposed to save the day. In a nutshell, newspapers had, over the years, given out so many special discounts that there were probably 35+ different rates for subscribers. What the algorithm did was to pick which people it would raise rates on based on some top-secret criteria. It knew that if it raised rates on a group of people, some number of them would cancel their subscription, while some number of them would start paying the higher rate. Those that dropped the paper tended to lower overall carrier expenses (shortened long motor routes) and lower productions costs (less papers to print), while those that agreed to pay the higher subscriptions helped offset the loss of subscribers.

They knew if they dumped 1000 customers and raised rates on 30,000 customers, they'd still make a bigger profit.

As I've read, their goal is to get rid of the print product and go totally digital. The problem is there's not enough money in digital advertising. Over time, all that will be left is large conglomerate newspaper companies, and very small-town local papers that will most likely be digital.

Printing just costs too much money.

 

[ultrarunner]

One of my first jobs was making press parts for the SF newspaper… we could make them at a much lower press point then the German/Swiss printing press manufacturer…

Had a friend that was the consummate newspaper man… never went anywhere without a pen and notepad in shirt picked and camera in car.

 

[MossRoad]

One of my first jobs was making press parts for the SF newspaper… we could make them at a much lower press point then the German/Swiss printing press manufacturer…

Had a friend that was the consummate newspaper man… never went anywhere without a pen and notepad in shirt picked and camera in car.

Do you remember what the press manufacturer's name was, by chance?

 

[ultrarunner]

Do you remember what the press manufacturer's name was, by chance?

No… it was a long time ago back when the space shuttle exploded… we had two large jobs… one for the printing press parts and another for the space shuttle program.