Fearing for the death of newspapers is a bit like fearing for the death of vinyl records or, now, CDs in the face of Blu-ray disks.
That might seem like sacrilege from a lifetime print journalist and the former editor of two newspapers, and I don’t want to downplay the emotional attachment of many people to the romance of newspapers, including my friend and business partner, Eric Beecher, and my friend and former colleague on The Age, Michael Gawenda.
But really, newspapers are just vehicles to disseminate journalism and the advertising needed to pay for that journalism, they are not the journalism itself. LPs used to be the way we listened to music until a better way came along. There are still vinyl tragics who still think LPs are the best way to listen to music, but not enough to make it worthwhile for anyone to make them.
In fact newspapers are a very poor way to send or receive the written word, or any sort of information for that matter. 150 years ago they were the height of new technology but now they are archaic, and in decline for good reason. They are limited in size, they only come once a day, they’re dirty, they use enormous energy and resources both in their production and delivery, and they cost a lot.
They have two advantages (I can’t think of any more): they are very portable and ink on paper is easier on the eye than screens.
I think it is obvious that now that the website has been invented, the disadvantages of newspapers become more obvious to the customers and vastly outweigh the advantages, just as the clunky disadvantages of the VCR came to outweigh its advantages as soon as the DVD was invented.
As someone who has managed both a journalism website and newspapers, I can tell you that the former is by far the best way to distribute journalism, apart from the portability thing perhaps, although my thin laptop is as portable as any newspaper. Websites contain more stuff, they are instant, they don’t require fossil fuels to deliver them (or not much anyway) and they’re cheap to produce.
That cheapness means that the production of journalism has been hugely democratised: no longer do you need a lot of capital to go into business producing and disseminating journalism. In fact there are thousands of single-person “newspapers” now, called blogs, and huge variety of other sizes.
The big problem is the mass business model. Newspaper proprietors over the years have used the protection of high barriers to entry to gouge super profits from their customers and build even more capital with which to defend their turf.
This has paid for some pretty good journalism, mixed in with a lot of rubbish designed to further the vested interests of advertisers and proprietors, or simply to fill up the space between the ads with PR material. Overall, the “rivers of gold” allowed newspapers companies to employ more journalists than they needed — and still need.
Now a new business model for delivering journalism to customers needs to be found.
Eric and Michael are castigating Fairfax for just going the slash and burn route and not using more imagination. But I think they both agree that however imaginative Fairfax is, the company will have to employ fewer journalists in future than it does now — that this is not a matter of choice, just a matter of how to get there.
When vinyl records gave way to CDs the record companies made more money because the cost of production was lower and they were able to charge more for the product because it sounded better.
That is not happening in the transition from newspapers to websites, even though websites are better and cheaper than newspapers. The cost of production falls dramatically, it’s true, but the price — cover price and advertising rates — falls even more — to zero in the case of cover price. Margins are squeezed. A lower cost model is required.
Trying to “save” newspapers — that is, distributing journalism on dirty, inefficient, archaic and expensive slabs of paper — is not the answer. The customers now want to pay less for the product, so we have to make it for less. It’s as simple as that.
Alan Kohler just happens to write for an internet based Business News service “Business Spectator”. Of course his leaning would be toward news from websites and not Newspapers. The Business Model for newspapers is changing, Rupert is buying more Newspapers because of the efficiencies that can be gained from having more newspapers on board in a world where this is a slow decline in newspaper readership. The content in papers is changing (and content is king!) to more local and more immediate, it has the ability to surprise and delight readers with information they were not expecting compared to a news website where you click on the story you want to know about (and what a clinical world that would be); not to mention that the distribution model has moved away from a Mums and dads business to professional, larger, logistic or transport or marketing companies taking the reigns (who are also investing a reasonable amount of dollars to improve that end of the supply chain). Newspapers Monday to Friday have declined, but weekends continue to grow because of the lifestyle advantages as Tim has stated. The newspaper industry is reacting to this shift in choice, but it is exactly that – a shift – and therefore can remain within the control of the industry to maximise readership whatever day of the week (business, TV, lifestyle, sport supplements and magazines are being included on weaker days). Alan’s view appears to be a common one, but is not shared by those with an interest in the Newspaper industry. Video was suppose to have killed the radio star as well. Radio adapted to the introduction of TV, and in more recent times to website based radio stations and Podcast (yes, I am serious it is only a year or so ago there were those that believed Podcasts would overtake radio!) Newspapers are adapting in much the same way.
Can newspapers reinvent themselves? The harsh reality for newspapers is that most of what appears in their lead pages is no longer news. Television, radio, and internet sites have beaten them to the punch. Where newspapers can compete is in their perspectives/ feature articles, and opinion pieces, depending on their objectivity. Articles should also be sourced from contributors other than staff journos. Variety after all is the spice of life. People will buy newspapers for the quality of the information contained therein. They will not buy rags emaciated by cost cutting. Nor will they buy newspapers focussed on pushing narrow agendas. They will rarely by a newspaper to keep up to date with the news. Today people have a choice and are increasingly exercising it.
Alan, re the “ink on paper is easier on the eye than screens” comment (and all your other commenters talking about the portability of electronic content), you need to check out one of the numerous commerical ebook readers based on “e-ink” displays. In Australia, Dymocks sell a few online – you can get a demo at the George St store in Sydney.
They solve the battery life, readability (they’re just as easy to read as ink-on-paper, even in direct sunlight) and portability problems.
Alan is one of the smartest editors I have met.
But he clearly has a perspective informed by his fiscal interest and that is the legitimate one of pursuing his business online. Would the CEO of Ford tell you to buy a GM? Would the marketing VP of Coke serve Pepsi at a BBQ? Does Jobs run Windows?
I don’t think so.
The bigger issue that Alan glossed over was one of mobility. A desktop PC with its big box and screen is immovable. Even a notebook has serious limitations about when and where it is used. The issue is increasingly one of portability. And it’s not just the devices – it’s the interactive interfaces they render.
Try reading Business Spectator or Crikey on an iPhone, for instance. Very. Bloody. Painful. (As I write this, BS server is down).
Rip your eyes out and dash the phone against the floor excruciating. Tiny screen. Limited colour palette. Minuscule characters and fonts. Few pictures. Little to no context between stories. Short battery life (why do they light up every pixel?) It’s like viewing the Mona Lisa through a keyhole.
Try accessing (ie reading) a newspaper. Multi-touch interface, Full colour, widescreen, hi-def, random access display that titillates the eyes and senses. And the battery won’t die in the middle of that 2000-word piece, just when you get to the meaty stuff.
Most sites on portable devices are lo-def alternatives. They’re stuck in a 1997 view of the online world (MS Windows, IE, 800×600 display).
As to the analogy about vinyl and CD — vinyl is still around. In fact, pressings are growing. It will never again be mainstream because people went for convenience over sound quality (MP3s sound worse again but they are even more convenient than CDs) but it will be with us for a bit longer yet. CDs were released in 1983 — and 25 years later you can buy vinyl.
It’s incumbent on online operators if they want to assume papers’ mantle to look seriously at the flaws in their own models and fix them before calling out the opposition.
Alan, you can’t wipe your b*m with vinyl….and that’s about as tenuous as your comparison between vinyl records and newspapers…I’m not going to waste time pointing out the rest.
You internet blokes can’t stand the fact the newspapers are still doing okay in this country, maybe we’re bucking the trend, maybe readers with half a brain realise that the internet is not fact cheked and doesn’t have any real responsibilty to anyone, maybe people find comfort in something tactile, whatever the reason…you and I will be well retired before the trusty newspaper disappears in this country.