Comments on: Living in the Year 1,500 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/ Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:38:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: dasht http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233455 dasht Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:15:14 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233455 @hue You're now close to arguing *my* point which is that it's a decline in demand for hard news that has newspapers in a bind, not the "gratis availability" of hard news on the net. It's a failure of the enlightenment, not of the delivery model. -t @hue

You’re now close to arguing *my* point which is that it’s a decline in demand for hard news that has newspapers in a bind, not the “gratis availability” of hard news on the net. It’s a failure of the enlightenment, not of the delivery model.

-t

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233395 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:19:42 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233395 Why didn’t someone else come along and offer a substitute product with everything *but* hard news, at a much lower price? if the answer is hiring more news staff and produce better content, they would have done that ages ago. if you could produce a substitute product at a lower price, people would be throwing money at substitute newspaper in every city. a simple business concepts: your costs can't be higher than your revenues. Why didn’t someone else come along and offer a substitute product with everything *but* hard news, at a much lower price?

if the answer is hiring more news staff and produce better content, they would have done that ages ago.

if you could produce a substitute product at a lower price, people would be throwing money at substitute newspaper in every city. a simple business concepts: your costs can’t be higher than your revenues.

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233394 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:13:14 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233394 you still don't get it. in a newspaper, they could monetize eyeballs, page views (read: circulation) with ads, because advertiser went there to be seen. car dealers bought huge ad sections not because of the news on the front page. They can't do that on the web. those Pennysavers just doesn't have the circulation or the reach. the quality of the news probably has declined but not that much. the customers paying for circulation only brings in a quarter or a third of newspaper revenues. what Chris Anderson said was that if the newspaper dropped the print edition, they cut half their costs, but 80% of the revenues. you still don’t get it. in a newspaper, they could monetize eyeballs, page views (read: circulation) with ads, because advertiser went there to be seen. car dealers bought huge ad sections not because of the news on the front page. They can’t do that on the web. those Pennysavers just doesn’t have the circulation or the reach. the quality of the news probably has declined but not that much. the customers paying for circulation only brings in a quarter or a third of newspaper revenues. what Chris Anderson said was that if the newspaper dropped the print edition, they cut half their costs, but 80% of the revenues.

]]> By: dasht http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233362 dasht Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:06:01 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233362 @hue, You said advertising was the major source of revenue but it was unclear where hard news fits in. My point is that it isn't unclear at all: Hard news is the only differentiating thing papers had/have going for them. It sold copies and subscriptions. Ads subsidize(d) those. If hard news didn't drive traditional newspaper circulation, then publications that didn't bother with hard news would have beat out newspapers long ago. Perhaps interestingly: the S.F. Chronicle, a troubled paper, recently managed to close its deficit by raising issue and subscription price by 33%, and that after a %50 hike not long ago. Why didn't someone else come along and offer a substitute product with everything *but* hard news, at a much lower price? The hard news is a papers main contribution of value: it's what, for the most part, customers are buying. -t @hue,

You said advertising was the major source of revenue but it was unclear where hard news fits in. My point is that it isn’t unclear at all: Hard news is the only differentiating thing papers had/have going for them. It sold copies and subscriptions. Ads subsidize(d) those. If hard news didn’t drive traditional newspaper circulation, then publications that didn’t bother with hard news would have beat out newspapers long ago.

Perhaps interestingly: the S.F. Chronicle, a troubled paper, recently managed to close its deficit by raising issue and subscription price by 33%, and that after a %50 hike not long ago. Why didn’t someone else come along and offer a substitute product with everything *but* hard news, at a much lower price? The hard news is a papers main contribution of value: it’s what, for the most part, customers are buying.

-t

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233298 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:52:11 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233298 the news in itself isn't valuable enough to cover its production expenses. otherwise, media companies would thrive on the Internet, charging for subscription, and not needing advertising. The New Yorker wasn't profitable in the booming 90s. http://bit.ly/1H78zR Newhouse is still willing to subsidize it. tech blogs are profitable because of advertising. political blogs are not for the same reason. DailyKos still in the red. http://bit.ly/41j3vM the news in itself isn’t valuable enough to cover its production expenses. otherwise, media companies would thrive on the Internet, charging for subscription, and not needing advertising.

The New Yorker wasn’t profitable in the booming 90s. http://bit.ly/1H78zR Newhouse is still willing to subsidize it.

tech blogs are profitable because of advertising. political blogs are not for the same reason. DailyKos still in the red. http://bit.ly/41j3vM

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233294 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:19:08 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233294 dasht, did i say advertising is the sole moneymaker? just ask the networks about their news divisions. why am i addressing someone writing nonsense trying to debunk Shirky? dasht, did i say advertising is the sole moneymaker? just ask the networks about their news divisions.
why am i addressing someone writing nonsense trying to debunk Shirky?

]]> By: mathman http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233290 mathman Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:01:49 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233290 Just my 2 cents: Like many if not most corporations and businesses, the capitalist model of constantly increasing profits is the flaw which leads to their demise. Look where it got David X. Li. The rigid insistance on ever increasing profits leads to cutting costs until the product is damaged, its value becomes questionable, and the underlying structure that supports it is undermined to the point of inoperability. Even Big Oil will have problems going forward (as will Big Pharma and Big Agri) for this same reason. Capitalism destroys democracy for the same reason (ie. our government no longer works for "we the people"). Just my 2 cents: Like many if not most corporations and businesses, the capitalist model of constantly increasing profits is the flaw which leads to their demise. Look where it got David X. Li. The rigid insistance on ever increasing profits leads to cutting costs until the product is damaged, its value becomes questionable, and the underlying structure that supports it is undermined to the point of inoperability. Even Big Oil will have problems going forward (as will Big Pharma and Big Agri) for this same reason. Capitalism destroys democracy for the same reason (ie. our government no longer works for “we the people”).

]]> By: dasht http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233286 dasht Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:07:49 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233286 @Hue, If what you say (that news was the loss leader, etc.) were true, then publications such as the "Pennysaver" in various cities would have, decades ago, forced newspapers out of business. -t @Hue,

If what you say (that news was the loss leader, etc.) were true, then publications such as the “Pennysaver” in various cities would have, decades ago, forced newspapers out of business.

-t

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233282 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:09:33 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233282 you must not believed that Goldman was trying to buy FannieMae tax credits, that came from All the News that's Fit to Print too. you must not believed that Goldman was trying to buy FannieMae tax credits, that came from All the News that’s Fit to Print too.

]]> By: hue http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/living-in-the-year-1500/comment-page-2/#comment-233281 hue Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:03:29 +0000 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43270#comment-233281 your leaning is spelled out right here Hoffer: "btw, do you have anything that links ol’ Scooter to Miller’s WMD reporting?" it was all in the newpapers that you don't trust. i believe there was even a trial. i know, that is not what Scooter was convicted of. Judy came up with all of the WMD stuff on her own. your leaning is spelled out right here Hoffer: “btw, do you have anything that links ol’ Scooter to Miller’s WMD reporting?”

it was all in the newpapers that you don’t trust. i believe there was even a trial. i know, that is not what Scooter was convicted of. Judy came up with all of the WMD stuff on her own.

]]>