Skip to comments.Newspaper Ad Revenues Collapse to 1950 Levels
Posted on 09/19/2012 7:11:36 AM PDT by all the best
There are three important things to keep in mind when looking at this gorgeous graph:
1. The graph is adjusted for inflation.
2. The red line accounts for online ad revenue.
3. The end began with the rise of the online blog.
Sometimes it doesnt feel like we're winning, because the corrupt media still has the power to create its own reality to create the illusion that they're everywhere and still quite capable of manipulating opinion, facts, and the truth.
But this graph proves that we're the ones who are winning and on two fronts. First off, the business model of being shameless left-wing shills when alternative and honest opinion is available online just isn't working. Secondly, as we've seen this election year, the corrupt media is more desperate to hold on to its narrative and political power than to fix its business problems. This means that in competition with the New Media, Old Media is forced to quadruple down on the appalling behavior that's driving customers away.
These cretins deserve to be put out of business and relegated to the ash heap of shame. This means we can't allow ourselves to be psyched out by what looks like impossible odds against implacable dominance. We have to keep fighting and pushing until the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Boston Globe, and the rest cease to exist.
You know, for America.
These entities can't sustain themselves forever, and the harder we fight to force the truth out there, the more the media is forced to further disgrace and expose themselves to protect their lies. This is a win-win for us.
Something else to make you feel better: The media is putting everything they have into destroying Mitt Romney, and he could still win this thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
TOO BIG TO FAIL!
All the Pravda’s can go down with their boy, Hussein.
See! There is some good news in newspapers.
There are quite a few “big city” papers that would be pleased to have the income they had in 1950.
What’s funny about this, is that these papers saw nothing wrong with killing off business or at least employment to 1950s levels. Okay, so who’s left to purchase their adds space? Who’s left to purchase their papers?
May the management of these rags rot in hell with the Pres__ent Resident.
I’m sure their plans now are to get a Fed subsidy and help themselves to the taxpayer funded government trough.
They should be happy. They have spent their careers parroting the anti-freedom agenda and now they see its result first hand.
May they ALL rot, there are no good guys in the MSM.
There were proposals a few years ago for a federal newspaper voucher for every American.
I am sure they would have included a proviso to keep millions of us subscribing to the WASHINGTON TIMES or something like it.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Newspapers are dirty, and bad for the environment.
Newspapers kill trees!
Newspapers require lots of trucks to haul lumber, paper and Newspapers.
Again, TAX NEWSPRINT!
(Of course, you can run a Newspaper if you want to, but you will go bankrupt!)
I am mighty proud to see this. I also hope that former subscribers and purchasers will become knowledgeable about how one can go online to most any of their favorite stores and outlets and get coupons to print out to save them the same amount they’d get even in buying that big Sunday newspaper. Kroger is a store that will allow you to tag coupons that automatically register when you check out with your store key....
These print media are nothing but ghouls and Democrat shills; they need to be crushed by boycott of their profit source.
damned straight. Make them pay the same kinds of taxes OBAMA wants to enslave the coal industry with - make it too expensive - drive them out of existence.
Looks like the media fell off their own “fiscal cliff” about the time Obama stepped into the Offal Office.
Yes, a few years ago I attempted to take online classes... and one of the things we were to write about was whether the government should issue newspaper vouchers to people to subsidize the industry.
I just found my response, or an early draft of my response:
I do not think the government should provide funding for newspapers because they will be replaced by more efficient industries and should not be propped up.
They are all going to die. There is no real question that the daily newspaper, as we have come to know it, is withering on the vine. Circulation is as low as 1965 even though the population is much higher today than it was then. The industry and some observers have called for a newspaper bail out of some type from the federal government. I do not think the government should provide funding for newspapers because they will be replaced by more efficient industries and should not be propped up.
The newspaper industry is dying, that is the general perception. One of the questions that has come up is should the government fund or support the newspaper industry in some way? Several ideas have been fielded but the general consensus is that it is not going to happen. This, in my view, would be a good thing for several reasons.
The main reason advertising revenue is dropping (Chittum, 2009) is because fewer and fewer people buy newspapers in this country. Many of those who buy or subscribe to the newspaper do not read much more than the sports or entertainment sections. Very few people seem to buy the newspaper to read the news.
The Kindle and other handheld electronic devices could spell the end of the daily printed newspaper in little more than a decade at the present rate. The news is available for free online from hundreds of sources around the world. Even if dozens of major newspapers put their online content behind a pay wall there are always many other free sources.
Newspapers have found charging for their online content to be a tough challenge but there are still plans to continue. Media baron Rupert Murdoch (Bloomberg, 2009) and the New York Times (CBS, 2010) newspaper are two leading industry giants with plans to make people pay for online news.
The Long Island Newsday launched such a project, giving print subscribers and subscribers to the local cable franchise (same owner) free access while charging others. After 3 months there were reportedly only 35 others who willingly paid (Koblin, 2010) for the online content.
Ideas from government vouchers for people to pay for news or art/music, a subsidy in other words to direct funding of newspapers by the government have been proposed. The plan put forward by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research would give each American $100 to support creativity.
United States Senator Cardin (Cardin, 2009) even introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to become non-profit entities even while allowing them to sell advertising.
But can a nonprofit newspaper (Vanacore, 2010, January 17) be counted on to actually report on government without being worried about losing its non-profit status?
Or maybe they should go ahead and give it a shot without waiting for the government to throw them a bone. Maybe readers will be able to trust it not to wag its tail for political favors? In some small communities (AP, 2005) it could very well be possible that people will want to voluntarily support a local publication.
So, why should we let this happen? Why should government not get involved to help newspapers stay in business?
The main reason is that government support and financing of the newspaper industry will slow down or even halt the evolution and improvement of the journalism industry. If government had decided to support the horse and wagon industry with major funding what would the transportation system of this country look like today?
It would be an artificial bubble economy that would create mal-investments and steer money away from its better uses or potential investments and innovations. It would make more economical sense for the New York Times to buy all of its paying readers a Kindle and cease printing on paper. Why would we want the government to step in and support the things that make no financial sense? What kind of mess would that lead to?
Government funding of newspapers in whatever form will simply be diverting resources away from newer technologies to prop up a failed business model. This will create mal-investment as it disfigures the market with protectionism. It also calls into question the freedom of the press as it would favor government-approved newspapers over those that are not.
We do not yet know if the Kindle or another hand held technology will become the prime news delivery vehicle in the future and we do not yet know how to make money doing it. We do know that any industry must adapt to changing dynamics and not simply call for protection against the future. Change is inevitable in all industries; cars dont come with buggy whips after all.
Chittum, Ryan (August, 2009) Newspaper Ad Revenues at 1965 Levels, Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 30, 2010
Murdoch Demands Pay for Content (2009, Dec 1) Bloomberg. Retrieved January 30, 2010
Behind the New York Times Pay Wall (2010, January 25). CBS News Retrieved January 30, 2010
Koblin, John (2010, January 26) After 3 months, only 35 subscriptions for Newsday. New York Observer
Baker, Dean (2003, November) The Artistic Freedom Voucher. An Internet Age Alternative to Copyrights. Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Sen. Cardin, 2009 bill introduced to US Senate. Retrieved January 30 from http://cardin.senate.gov/pdfs/newspaperbill.pdf
Vanacore, Andrew (2010, January 17) Can newspaper muckraking carryon in nonprofits?, Associated Press, via San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 30, 2010
AP (2005) retrieved from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525768
I reference it as the DNC, for propagandists.
And you're probably right. I like to think that the guys in the print area are just doing their jobs, but they're all contributing to misleading the citizens of our nation.
You could just scan the coupon off the Iphone or Tablet at the checkout counter!