Marc Andreessen: "The game is completely over" The whole piece on newspapers starts about 28 minutes in. (via Alfred Hermida on reportr.net) Previous entry Next entry Comments Elwood Larkins February 22, 2009 1:17 PM What are we supposed to do for outhouse paper? Huh? Reply Jack Lail February 22, 2009 1:22 PM Direct mail? Reply DaveP. February 22, 2009 1:34 PM Tell a statistical 50% of the population that you think they're stupid and hate their guts; adopt political propaganda-mongering as an editorial stance; get caught lying- not just once, but repeatedly, and in a blatantly partisan fashion; and abandon all investigative reporting that conflicts with the editor's political and social agenda... and then see what happens to your stocks. Buh-bye, print media. Your soul- honest nonpartisan reportage, without fear or favor, to produce a well-informed demos- rotted long before your body followed suit. Reply Jack Lail February 22, 2009 1:43 PM You know, I wish it was just easy an editorial problem. While there is certainly much to criticize about the press, by most measures, print and online readership has never been higher for newspapers. Reply Andy Freeman February 22, 2009 4:48 PM > While there is certainly much to criticize about the press, by most measures, print and online readership has never been higher for newspapers. It's unclear how the documented loss of subscriptions and drop in newsstand sales is consistent with higher print readership. Online readership is increasing, but the increasing revenues from on-line are less than the loss of revenue from print. It is true that much of the cost of print is, no suprise, related to print. So, it's at least possible that on-line only newspapers will have as much profit as their print-only predecessors, but they'll do it on much less revenue, with far fewer employees. It's more likely that on-line only newspapers will have about the same profit margin as print-only newspapers once had, but they'll do it with far less revenue, and as a result, far less profit. Reply Jack Lail February 22, 2009 5:05 PM I tend to agree with you Andy, except I would be surprised if the online-only margins can match print. Print newspapers for the most part have been local monopolies with high costs of entry. Online is filled with competitors with a low cost of entry; that should keep margins relatively modest. Reply Punkindrublic February 22, 2009 5:05 PM With the exception of news that is truly about the local area AND reported on by locals, most newspapers I scan parrot national level "news" of Associated Press word-for-word...which I haven't trusted for many years. Local papers aren't the problem, it's who they buy their "We-can't-afford-to-send-a-reporter-there!" crap from. Once AP tanks news we'll be more knowledgeable of the facts through other outlets. Reply John Nowak February 22, 2009 5:42 PM I remember living in a long residence hotel until my apartment was available. The cost was actually less than my apartment would be. Most of the the tenants were old folk, not the sort who need constant attention, but a little vague, if you know what I mean; not ready for managed care, but far enough along that the daily maid service was a big help. Every room got a copy of the local rag, left loose in front of the door. And almost every copy was left there, to be spread along the hall until the maids cleaned them up in the evening. On a good day, it looked like someone was keeping puppies in the hall. I'm sure that every one of those papers was reported to advertisers as "paid subscription readership." Reply Arthur February 22, 2009 6:59 PM Charlie don't surf!!!!!! Reply Post a Comment Reply to comment Comments (You may use HTML tags for style) Name Email Address URL Remember personal info? Captcha:Type the characters you see in the picture above.