So let me pause to ask – if your newspaper were to go out of
business today, how would that impact your organization?
And here’s why I am asking. According to the Newspaper Association of America (NAA):
· Total print advertising has dropped from $47.4
billion in 2005 to $20.6 billion in 2011 – the lowest print advertising has
been since 1983 (not factoring for inflation).
· In 2011, the total daily circulation of all the
newspapers in the United States was 44.4 million, the lowest on record since
1940.
· Citing a 2010 Scarborough report for adults 18+,
47% of the U.S. population 35 years and older read an average issue of a daily
newspaper in comparison to only 26% of the population under 35.
According to The Pew Research Center, since 2003, the
Internet has been on par or more popular than newspapers as a news source, and
currently just 21% of young adults report newspapers as their primary source of news. As the
Internet has become increasingly popular as a news source, newspapers have
invested tremendous amounts of resources in building their online presence, but
here’s the problem – for every $1
gained in online advertising, newspapers lost $10 in print advertising in
2011. And the reason? In print advertising, newspapers are dominate, but
online, they compete in a very crowded marketplace, where Google and Facebook
combined will share just under 30%
of total online display advertising revenue in 2012.
Using the statistics provided online by the NAA, in 2005
1,452 daily newspapers shared $47.4 billion in print advertising for an average
of $32.6 million in print advertising per daily paper. Six years later, 1,382
daily newspapers shared $20.6 billion in print advertising for an average of
$14.9 million in print advertising per daily paper.
In six years, the average daily newspaper lost more than 50%
of its print advertising revenue, placing in jeopardy the entire business model
of most newspapers and leading to drastic changes. Newspapers around the nation
are slashing their newsrooms, laying off veteran reporters and in the best case
scenarios, replacing them with freelance reporters with little experience. In worst cases, they aren’t replaced at all. Just recently the theater world received news that veteran Philadelphia Inquirer arts writer and critic Howard Shapiro, after 42 years with the paper, was reassigned to cover South New Jersey in what seemed like an attempt to make him miserable enough to leave. And it looks like it worked.
With fewer reporters and less experience, not only has
coverage decreased, but quality has diminished as well. Many of us shook our heads when a small
online magazine named Pasadena Now
hired two writers in India
to cover local events but just recently we’ve learned of Journatic,
a company that outsources journalism to the Philippines for US newspapers. Others have transitioned from primary
reporting to aggregating content from other news sources and then
providing commentary on the aggregated material. When I was at the Smithsonian,
one such company drew inaccurate conclusions by providing editorial on
aggregated stories. When I called to tell them of the inaccuracies and offer to
set up interviews so they could report on the story directly, the freelance
writer told me they didn’t pay him enough to do any original reporting.
Unfortunately for us, other outlets picked up his story. I understand cutting as much fat as possible
from budgets during tough economic times, but at some point, there isn’t any
fat left, and what remains is only muscle. Cutting further sacrifices your
ability to deliver an excellent product, which is why I advise arts
organizations to avoid cutting investments in the artistic product itself if at
all possible when making budget adjustments.
By sacrificing quality, I’m afraid newspapers could be pouring gas on an
already blazing fire.
Posts
