The Death of the Newspaper?

Since the Internet first started gaining popularity, experts have been saying that the beloved/hated newspaper would be out of business in "x" number of years. Usually it's been a low number, like under 10. "They" all said that people wouldn't need a newspaper since they could get instant news on the internet. Well before it showed up in print. Those of you older than I can probably remember the same thing being said when TV and Radio came on the scene with news. The newspaper still survived.

But the internet is a different beast. It's more than a visual replacement for the newspaper. With products like the Sony E-Reader and Amazon's Kindle you can download your favorite newsfeeds overnight and read them in the morning. Like reading the paper. And, guess what? Many of those are the online version of a newspaper. Normally a large paper like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. I doubt that the Lufkin Daily News (Lufkin, TX) is available on the Kindle. However, they do have a website.

So why is it that so many people are ready to pronounce newspapers dead? Well, for one thing, circulation nation-wide has dropped dramatically. And the Internet is the prime suspect. And I agree. There are many people out there that get their news from the Internet. They get it from TV and Radio too. Newspapers have been relegated to a 3rd or 4th source of news for most. I'm one who gets a lot of my news from the internet.

I'm what can be called an "early adopter" when it comes to technology. While I may not buy the latest and greatest gadget out there, I tend to keep up on them. I peruse the Internet for the next big thing and learn about it. I've joined the social networking revolution. Even though I'm an early adopter, I did join it kind of late. However, I now join things that most people have never heard of, like Twitter. And if you look to the right on this blog, there is a section that has some of my recent "Tweets."

To say I live on the 'Net in my spare time can be an understatement sometimes. One of the few things I haven't tackled yet is DOING a podcast rather than listening/watching them. Maybe I'll put a list of them on the right hand side too. And I've been this way pretty much since I first logged on in 1995. Much of my news comes from there.

I recently ask my Twitter followers to reply to a simple question. "Do you read the newspaper? Why or why not?" I have relatively small number of followers - 189. And I got responses from 9 of those people. Below are the responses - I left out who they are as I didn't ask permission to use their Twitter/real names:

"does the red eye count. If so i read it daily."

"I read it at the office because somebody leaves it in the break room, won't subscribe at home goes from curb direct to recycling bin"

"up until recently I took the newspaper solely for the grocery coupons"

"absolutetly. Have the Boston Globe delivered 7 days a week. Usually pre-pay by the year"

"you mean like the ACTUAL paper? Not anymore. I stopped reading print in January. Stopped all my subscriptions"

"i browse the Wall Street Journal, esp the Saturday one at home. I usually get my news online though"

"nope, blogs filter to me the stuff I'm interested in."

"yes, but not every day. There is so much to catch up on! (I do read the sports section first)!!"

"no I don't. I'm too tired from Reading all day long at work. I get my news from news radio."

As you can see, I got a variety of answers. 6 of the 9 said they did at least look at a newspaper. The other three solely rely on other means for news. If you notice, though, almost all of them didn't give a reason why. Granted, they only have 140 characters to formulate their answer. My answer pretty much follows and is definitely more than 140 characters.

A very long time ago, I also worked at a newspaper. The Austin American-Statesman as a matter of fact. I worked for them for 6 years. I also had a brief stint one summer at the San Antonio Express-News. And during that time I preached that people should subscribe to their local newspaper.

Much of that also came from the fact that I grew up in a newspaper family. And not the "sexy" reporter side of things, but the boring circulation side. However, when I left Austin, I stopped subscribing. I mean, the Houston Chronicle was a good paper and all, but I didn't want to shell out the money. I had gotten my Statesman subscription for free as an employee.

I also found that I didn't seem to have the same amount of time in the mornings. But guess what? At almost every lunch that I had when I was out in the field, I would buy a newspaper. Even the Lufkin one if that was where I was at. It gave me something to read. On the weekends, I didn't bother most of the time, but sometimes I'd get the Sunday paper.

This lack of a newspaper subscription continued in the next two cities I lived in. Some of it was financial. I didn't seem to be able to justify the money on something I was rarely going to read given the nature of the work I did - Restaurant/Bar. Odd hours where I would usually work at night and sleep during the day.

Some of it was just a long-forming habit. I had a routine of not reading it on a regular basis and the availability of the news becoming easier on the 'Net. However, I also kept bookmarks of all of those newspapers mentioned so that I could keep up with places I lived currently and before. Not so much with Cincinnati, but yes in Chicago.

In Chicago, I had a pretty good excuse. It was too much hassle to get a subscription. On top of the crazy hours and habit that had formed. I lived in what they call a "5 Flat." That is, a building with five floors of apartments where you needed a key to get into the building. So it's not like the paper carrier was going to come inside and drop off a paper to my door like they do in suburban apartment complexes.

However, I did occasionally pick up a paper from the rack outside my apartment or the convenience store on my way to work. And normally it was the Chicago Sun-Times since it's format is the easier to read on trains and buses "Tabloid" format. Nothing wrong with the Chicago Tribune. That's actually my preferred website for Chicago Newspapers. I would also occasionally get one if I was having dinner in my neighborhood.

Now I'm back in San Antonio. And I pretty much read the paper every morning. Much of that is the fact that when I do have a morning shift, I don't have to be there until about 10 AM. And I'm usually awake by 7:30 or 8:00 anyway. Plenty of time to peruse the paper. And I've rediscovered the joy of that.

A newspaper, while it's yesterday's news, tends to give you a more detailed description of a story than the TV or Radio can. An argument long-used by newspapers when trying to compete with TV and Radio. And it's a valid one. However, the Internet is a bit different. There is no need to edit the story to fit in a given time-frame. Even the physical limitations of print rarely apply. There's no concern about being able to fit those 1/4 page ads and a reporter's copy on the same page.

But, here is what a newspaper does give you. The ability to quickly scan the content and digest it to determine what is relevant for you. You can't do that on the 'Net. A webpage only gives you a small window at any point in time of a newspaper's page. Yes, you can use newsreaders to give you the headlines, but it's still different. Newsreaders don't necessarily sort those headlines like a newspaper.

Try it sometime. I can digest an entire newspaper and eat breakfast in about 30 minutes or less. I only read the articles that interest me, but I still get relevant info from a headline. I can kind of do the same thing with the 'Net, but there is still some lag time with scrolling down pages, and clicking links to go to different sections. They don't make their web versions like a paper where you just turn the page. Oh, and my laptop isn't at the kitchen table.

Now the New York Times and a few others used to do something similar by showing you a replica of their front page. I really liked that. Their website was designed a little bit like the real thing. However, they no longer do that from what I can tell. For a short period of time you could still view the old version, but they took away that link.

So besides what I think is a more efficient way of digesting news, what other advantages are there? Believe it or not, the ads. Only in the newspaper will you get the kind of ads you see. Newspaper ads are also efficient and cost-effective compared to TV and Radio for small businesses. Even larger companies like car dealerships.

And what is this advantage? It's a physical object that you can refer to and take with you. Can't really do that with TV, Radio, or the 'Net. Yeah, I have the Internet in the palm of my hand with an iPhone, but it's still not the same. I still have to connect, whereas I can just pull out the ad from my pocket and unfold it.

And this is where I'm really going with all of this. The physical nature of a newspaper is it's greatest advantage. Most people really don't bring their iPhone, laptop, or Kindle to the "John" to read do they? OK, maybe some early adopters will. C'mon, admit it. That's the real reason you got wi-fi.

But seriously, there's no connecting to a network to retrieve your info. No worry about dropping a piece of electronics and damaging it. No worry about sitting on said piece of electronics. And you can't use those electronics to cover your head in a thunderstorm when you left your umbrella in the car.

Also, for local stories, only a newspaper can really deliver that content. Local radio and TV can't devote enough time to cover everything a newspaper can. And most of the time, those stories don't make it the web version of the local paper.

So, do I think newspapers are doomed? Not entirely. We still have books, right? People like the feel of a newspaper in their hands. They like the feel of a book in their hands. They even like the feel of a plain document in their hand. Remember the paperless office? Yeah, that never happened.

While I don't think newspapers are doomed, I think they are really missing the boat. They really need to cross-promote between their print and web versions more. I know the Express-News is doing that a bit. But the 'Net is not the only reason for circulation numbers declining.

Many cities have become one-newspaper towns. And when that happens, they all of a sudden think they don't need to advertise their product anymore. No more promotions. No more giveaways. No more sponsorships. Why? When you're the only game in town, you need to still advertise. When you're the #1 of a product, you need to advertise. Do you think Coke, Apple, Budweiser think that because they're number one they don't need to constantly remind you about that? Being the only game in town is the same as being the #1 in town.

Newspapers for too long have alienated their readership. The old guard took too long to understand the power of the 'Net. A perfect opportunity to capitalize on an electronic version to complement the print version. The industry has continued to constrict in reaction to lower circulation numbers and lower ad revenue, which leads to lower circulation numbers and lower ad revenue.

I saw a similar thing in magazines. Circulation numbers drop so we dramatically drop the draw to an area that barely covers the displays in town. That means less "billboards" in people's faces to remind you to pick up that copy of their favorite magazine. I'm not saying be wasteful, just be intelligent with your distribution.

So I have rediscovered reading the newspaper everyday. It never really completely went out of my life either. I also get a lot of information on the 'Net. And that information is more specialized. I can only get it from those sources. I also get it from TV. Not so much from radio though.

What people need to understand is that newspapers are still a relevant source of information. They are part of an expanding pool of sources to gain information. No one part can be the ultimate source. So pick up a copy of your local newspaper if you haven't done in a while. Sit in a relaxed environment and just read it.

I welcome more comments about this on the blog.

Mark

Not in Favor of Favre

Hello, all. Football is just about here. Pre-season has officially started with both a bang and a yawn with Favre's return and the Hall of Fame Game last night respectively. It should have started with a yawn alone. In my opinion, Favre should have stayed retired.

Now let me first say that I highly respect his skills as a player. Many a time I have "hated" him when he faced my favorite team, the Minnesota Vikings. And even many other times when I just wanted the Packers to lose so that it would help my beloved Vikings. And Brett, you had an amazing season last year. One that is worthy of retirement. Even though you didn't make it to the Super Bowl, it was a great season for you. Unlike Robert Horry's disappointing season last year and his desire to come back to retire on a high note, Favre DID retire on a high note.

The Packers had moved on. The state of Wisconsin had moved on. The country had moved on. And Aaron Rogers was ready to move on up. We were all ready for life after Brett. Some of us in the NFC Central more than others too. I'm not saying that the Packers can't be contenders with Aaron Rogers, but he really hasn't been elevated to messianic status yet. The rest of the division was ready to participate in the free-for-all....well, maybe not the Lions ;)

Hey! They're like the Cubs. Tons of hope at the beginning of each season, then they come crashing down. BTW, what is going on with the Cubs this year? Did someone forget to tell them they are supposed to choke already?

So now Brett is back in Packerville and will be reporting to camp today. From all the reports I read the starting QB is still Aaron Rogers. So where does this leave Brett? A backup QB there to coach Aaron? Aaron has been there since 2005 so it's not like he's a rookie anymore.

A trade? Well, let me tell you right here, right now. Brett should not be traded unless it's to a team with a legitimate chance at a Super Bowl. Hmmmm, let's see, pretty much any of those teams already have a QB of his caliber. So why would you want to end your career on a team with no chance?

And let me also state that if he does get traded to the Vikings, I still stand by my statement. Just remind me of this if it does happen and he takes the Vikings to the Promised Land.

Why do I feel this way? It's not entirely a rivalry thing where your hated enemy becomes an ally. That was Robert Horry for me a few years ago. The difference here is that Horry didn't retire and then at the last minute change his mind and expect to be welcomed with open arms. No, his contract with L.A. was up and the Spurs felt he could be a good addition to the team. And he was. Now Horry won't be back as a Spur and if he does get picked up by a team, he will return to the hated enemy (although loved/respected) status.

Favre retired. Plain and simple. He should be embracing this moment. Hell, the Packers offered a sweetheart deal of $20 or $25 million (depending on the report) for a 10-year marketing deal. Zoinks?! Are you kidding me? Get paid a couple mil a year to NOT play football? That's like being a farmer and getting paid to NOT plant crops that year.

And that analogy might be more true than you think. Brett obviously wants to play again. And for the Packers. Someone who loves playing the game probably doesn't want to be paid to not play. Same thing for a farmer. Even though the farmer can get paid to not plant a crop (for various reasons), he's still a farmer and that's in his blood. It's also more profitable in the short term for him to plant than not.

Same thing for Brett. While $20-25mil isn't a lot for 10 years as a veteran 3-time MVP football player. That's still a lot of money to get paid 10 years from now when he physically couldn't play.

So with all that said, here is the real reason. And shoot me now for just finding this out last night - AFTER I had decided to write this post. He's on the frakkin' cover of Madden '09!? Brett, for the love of football fans and fantasy football fans everwhere, break the curse! Stay retired. There are no stats to go into decline if you're retired. You can't get injured on the field if you are retired. Dude, think about it. The only non-active player in the history of this huge video game to even be on the cover?!

Man, either EA is just pissed off about all of this or they are loving it. Talk about being able to really hype the game. The bottom line is the bottom line. This was all a big marketing ploy a la New Coke. The big switcheroo, folks. Brett retires, then EA strikes a deal to put him on the cover and milk the retirement angle. BUT, if he doesn't retire, sure we need to re-market it, but the payout will outweigh the additional costs.

And there you have it. It's a conspiracy by EA and the NFL to get more money ;) And now you know....the rest of the story.

l8r,

Marz

P.S. If he does become a Viking, I'm not really sure how I'll take it. But that's a separate post entirely.