The New York Times has an amazing article about its survival chances - one that would have been unthinkable 3 years ago. It exults in a tiny profit (actually a miniscule "plus") and the fact that it smartly positioned itself to "ride out another year of the recession, maybe two."
The article is called:
Resilient Strategy for Times Despite Toll of a Recession
The tone of the article shows how desperate things have become. For an industry where 20-30% profit margins were the norm a few years back it is a jaw-dropping shock to hear the company pride itself that it has only lost 14.2% in ad revenue in 2008, as opposed to 16% industry -wide.The author then congratulates the company on the fact that it only has to take out small loans, rather than huge ones (hard to get) like other newspapers are scrambling for.
How the mighty are fallen.
Even more unbelievable is the sense one gets reading the article that their business plan has not really changed. Sure, they have "integrated the newsroom with the Web...added blogs and slideshows..." and tried some other digital experiments. But everything else seems the same. The author of the article seems to think that is progressive.
Well - they might have been progressive steps in 2000.
This is 2009. In Internet Years, as in dog years, that is six decades behind.
If only the business side of things were affected, they might be able to blame it on the recession. But the last 5 or 6 years have also taken a terrible toll on the Times' credibility with the revelations of several major scandals within its core journalism ethos. There is more amiss in the crystallized newspaper world than Internet competition. (That is a post for another time).
I don't exult in the demise of an American institution like the New York Times, or the newspaper industry as a whole. I do, however, find myself continually amazed that they cannot see the big picture.
American society - world society - has changed.
People are not reading newspapers, in print or online. They are reading news stories - not newspapers.
There is a vast difference.
Google, a popular hashtag on Twitter, your Facebook friends or even a good cable news blog can link you up in ten minutes to dozens more news stories you really like than your newspaper can in a total read.
It is not just that it is free. It is the fact that the filters are different. You can choose your own set.
But the giants can't see it - or won't.
Their editorial model and business model have to accomplish a lot more for them than just getting by.
If I may make a prediction - the end of the recession will not so much witness the end of problems for the NYT and other big papers as it will the huge success of their competition.
The real competition is news and opinion coming from everywhere, professional and amateur, aggregated online.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI think it's important how you deliver your product, however, it is a content that keeps your audience hooked. "New York Times" is one the best newspapers out there and I will find and read it whether it is online or print, because of those words written by journalists. And I think these guys know that.
Great points, Alan. I think that you are spot on in saying that the NYT--and every other paper--has to revisit their business model. While the Times' product is great, they aren't making enough money from the popular channels of consumption (Internet, Kindle, whatever else is next).
ReplyDelete