From Terrible To Terrifying: Newspaper Ad Sales Plummet $2.6 Billion In Q1 2009
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking...
What a brilliant article! It's an especially fascinating commentary on how people can be willing to go to such great lengths to deny a stark but simple and obvious explanation of what is happening.
I want to read stories about events all over the world and their meanings, context and history. I want those stories to be written by experts whose full-time job is tracking those stories down and explaining them to me. People like that have to get paid, and it's not clear yet how that's going to happen in the post-newspaper future.
There's always a demand for this sort of news, so I'm sure new businesses will spring up in the future to supply it to me. But it's going to be an annoying few years while it gets sorted out.
"yawn Are we going to keep bemoaning the death of VHS too? What about 8-track? Newspapers are dead. People don’t want them. News is not dead, people want it. Figure it out."
Sadly, times have changed. We need to "bail out" any failing business, no matter how ridiculous:
The Ridiculous Newspaper Bailout Begins http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ridiculous-newspaper-bail...
Imagine our current crop of politicians at the turn of the (20th) century: "Save the poor horse and buggy! Just think of the crumbling equine economy!"
Although we don't have any advertisements on the main TicketStumbler site, we've seen the price of tickets, on average, plummet. Some Major League Baseball tickets are selling 80% below face value.
In terms of Mibbit, advertising has been extremely stable for the last 6 months (adsense). (In absolute terms it's been growing, along side mibbit).
I used to do a lot more affiliate marketing on another site, but still see a fair amount of commissions from it, even though it's "dead". I think online advertising is pretty healthy.
Anyone else have any interesting data/thoughts?
Things like Adwords have gone sideways: Some reducing spending to cope with reduced income, some increasing for the same reason. I think slight net positive.
Client growth is to irregular to know what's going on without looking at years instead of months.
Put the two together & I read it as deferring bulky expenses, but overall strengthening slowly. Anyway, the areas we deal in there's a lot of cash still stuck in legacy budgets: yellow pages, local newspapers& crappy online advertising. New companies aren't going there at all, but all of them are going online one way or another.
Newspapers aren't going to disappear. Specialty newspapers like the financial times will always have their place on my breakfast table, but the boring, almost-pointless local news?
Thats going on my kindle in a hurry.
As well as it being easier than ever to publish your original content, it's also become easier than ever to book advertising. The company I work for is based in old media (TV) and working on strategy in bundling TV ad sales with radio and print for niche markets but it's not a viable long-term approach - I do learn interesting things about how the ad biz works, but some days I can't help hearing the subtext as 'this slide rule will still work when your calculator batteries have died'.
My perspective is probably skewed by being an early adopter, though, and the fact that society always moves far slower than I hope.
And online there's AdBlock :)
AdBlock basically works by blocking inline ads loaded from offsite - eventually someone is going to figure out how to get around it.
And as far as "too intrusive", that will only last as long as people let it. It'll be the "slowly boiling water" technique, adding more and more intrusive ads slowly enough that there won't be an immediate backlash.
Any company wishing to create content will have to figure out how to monetize it somehow, or else they'll have no reason or ability to create/provide the content in the first place, and right now, the current ad model just isn't enough for the level of profitability that traditional media are accustomed to. If YouTube, one of the most popular sites on the planet, can't come up with enough ad revenue to be profitable, the current status quo just isn't enough. Either they will need to scale back their site, or add a massively increased volume of ads.
It's not that hard to do, there's not much figuring out involved. It just doesn't make sense to serve ads to people who have actively taken steps to ensure that they don't see them.
As for YouTube - do you realize how much data they deal with? Their costs are ridiculous; they're hardly the example you should be trotting out to inspire incredulity about the viability of the online advertising model.
I don't think the online advertising model is a failure - I just think there is a lot more room for increased ad volume with it. As traditional media outlets decline, we are going to see more and more of that room exploited on our screens.
As far as AdBlock, no company wants to pay for eyes that they are never going to get on their ads. There was (and is) plenty of resistance to TiVo from the networks because they know that companies do not want to pay for commercials that consumers using TiVo can and will skip.
There is no way the vast amount of free, professionally made, high-quality content we have available online now continues without some sort of tradeoff in either cost, increased ad exposure, or reduction in quality. The transition period the internet is in right now has to end sometime, and I'm pretty sure it will come down squarely on the side of the content providers/producers.
I was simply using YouTube as an example of something that, absent of Google deciding to run it at a significant loss for 5 years (far from certain), will have to change its operating methods to something less pleasant to the consumer.
The only thing I ever said was that YouTube wasn't a good example supporting your point, because it was in a completely different situation from most of the rest of the web, and that because of its unique situation, it actually could continue on at a loss for quite a while longer than most.
In other words, you were kind of right, but for the entirely wrong reason.
I suppose another option would be that we get more effective ads. Right now I get bombarded with flashy ads about things I have no interest in, so I no longer even see them. But if, say, HN would have a "Buy now" link off to the side every time one of us mentions a book, or "Learn <programming langugage>" with a link to the O'Reilly's book for that language every time we mention a programming language, I'll bet those ads might lead to a lot of sales. Arguably, you could even call them a service to the reader.
Not that I hold out much hope for this happening at very many sites...
Sadly, many newspapers seem to approach this today.
Advertising on a bus is more demographically targeted than newspaper advertising, I mean generally lower income and likely don't own a vehicle. I don't own a drivers license, so why do I care about the new Ford Taurus, they just wasted money by advertising to me.
However, there's no advertising in book sales. Perhaps this is why for the past ten years they've had record sales. The internet has only helped book sales, and interestingly free eBook releases also boost sales.
The assumption that publishing is dead because of the internet is just stupid. We have ubiquitous clean water supplies, but people still "waste" money on bottled water. Plumbing isn't as useful to people as water in a bottle. Similarly, eBooks aren't as useful to people as books (at least so far).
Kindle and similar eBook readers offer promise to removing the paperback from its throne, but tangibility and freedom are key here. I can hand my book to anyone, I can sell it on and whatever I want, this creates the incredible ability for free advertising. Most of my books are from authors recommended to me, which usually involved the person handing me the book to me for me to read.
Also you can't advertise that you're intelligent and well read better than a bookshelf full of books. Then there's all the textile sensations that come with books.
While I don't doubt books will likely go the way of the newspaper. I highly doubt the end is nigh for bookpublishers when they have record sales. It just stinks of the BS spouted in the 50's that the end of the automobile would be soon because of how cheap air travel was becoming. I'm still not flying to work, so I'll laugh and ridicule the people who tell me book publishers are going to go out of business when they have record sales, just as everyone should have doubted we'd be flying to work when automobile manufacturers were posting record profits and more highways were being built than ever.
It just strikes me as ignorant, that so many tech news websites and the fanboys on them don't seem to grasp that newspapers and novels are far more different than Microsoft and Apple. You'd think people who can proclaim two computers so different would be capable of understanding a newspaper is not a book, alas apparently not.
- yes, they are "yesterday" news, but that isn't a problem for me. For most news, I just don't need to know instantly that they happened.
- by fliping the pages I can get better overview of what is going on in the world (comparing to clicking on links).
- It doesn't have the interaction element. I could better relax with print newspaper, since my mind don't need to think about adding comments to articles I read.
All in all, I'd say that I am as geeky as any of you, but for general news, I have found that print newspaper still provides better user experience for me, comparing the online news.
Seriously it is year over year sales change by quarter graphed as percentage change.(I guess to make it look more dramatic)
here is the raw data: http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expenditures...