Working Title

I just found a save-the-newspapers action that I must admit I’m a bit sceptical of. It’s a petition for a week without virtual newspapers. The idea is that readers have no idea how much of what they read/hear/see is the result of free online news put out by newspapers. So, founders argue, why not unplug those free online editions for a week and show just how dependent the whole media machine is on them?

I’m intrigued by the concept — certainly, as a reporter for the only daily paper in Guelph, I often felt that even while many stories were written about Guelph issues, their source was our paper. I’ve heard my lead read on tv news; I’ve seen reporters from other media scanning printouts of my stories as they prepare to gather their soundbyte from the mayor; I’ve observed others taking notes of the questions I asked.

But I can’t help but shudder when people’s solution to the current media crisis involves reeducating readers in some way. I read the news online, all the time. It’s convenient, and I’d be woefully misinformed if I relied only on my print paper subscription. It’s incumbent on media to figure out how to make money from my reading, not on me to pay, out of the goodness of my heart.

Still, I’ll be curious to see what kind of waves this scheme makes.

• Know Newspapers online petition

Newspaper giant Axel Springer reported the highest profit in its history this week. The company owns Bild, the biggest paper in Europe.

I don’t believe in the end of journalism. On the contrary, I think the crisis can have a positive impact. The number of players will diminish, but the strong players may be stabler after the crisis,” Mathias  Döpfner, Springer CEO, told the New York Times.

(In Poland, where I am right now, Axel Springer puts out Fakt — one of the country’s top-selling tabloids, often considered to have questionable news value and ethics.)

In Europe, the NYT reports, circulation is falling slower than in the US, and revenue is more stable because papers here rely more on readers than on advertisers.

Online they’re doing better as well. VG Nett, affiliated with Verdens Gang, a Norwegian paper, is the most innovative. News is free, and the company generates most of its revenue from online advertising. But it has started charging for an online weightloss club and for live streams of sports games and social networking.

• European Newspapers Find Creative Ways to Thrive in the Internet Age, New York Times, March 29

Newspaper advertising sales dropped in every category last year.

Also declining was online revenue, which had grown for the previous four years, but by only 1.8%. That means online was still up 56% since 2003.

Here are two charts showing print and online ad sales.

U.S. newspaper advertising sales (source:NAA)

It is good to see the growth in online, but note that the declining chart above it is 10 times bigger. Obviously aggregate sales are affected by the availability and supply of media in given markets, but it shows how much space online would have to make up to support similar operations.

By going online, just cutting printing costs won’t make up that difference.

• Newspaper Association of America: Advertising Expenditures

Editorial cartoon about Google news - click on the image to see it in its full size

It was interesting to be in San Francisco recently and read the discussion, overt and snide (see above), in the Chronicle and elsewhere, about how the future of San Fran might play out without a newspaper.

The Chronicle is NoCal’s biggest paper, with a circulation well over 300,000. But last month, the owner — specifically Hearst vice chair and CEO Frank A. Bennack Jr. and president Steven R. Swartz — released a dire statement.

“…without the specific changes we are seeking across the entire Chronicle organization, we will have no choice but to quickly seek a buyer for the Chronicle or, should a buyer not be found, to shut the newspaper down,” they said.

The paper has been losing money every year since 2001, and, like everywhere, 2009 is hardly rosy. (Hearst recently made good on its word elsewhere, turning the Seattle Post-Intelligencer into an online-only shadow of its former self.)

Cartoons like the one above, and supportive letters to the editor filled the Chronicle. The people of San Francisco, surprise surprise, love their paper. I’ll pay more! they chanted, on the letters page. Here’s a selection of letters from today alone.

I have been giving a lot of thought about how to save one of the high points of my day: The Chronicle. … This plan may also have the benefit of encouraging the suburban dailies to devote more of their coverage to their communities, instead of relying so heavily on the Associated Press and other news services to serve their customers, who may not have the advantage of reading a “city paper.”

– How about one giant daily?, David Loberg, March 26

Don’t leave us … we need you desperately!

–Core audience, Daniel B. Rosen, March 26

I have been reading this paper since I was in elementary school in the ’60’s. I even won an elephant shaped key to the San Francisco Zoo information boxes for a painting when kids used to submit their artwork and the pictures were published in the original Green sports pages alongside the comics.

–Santa Cruz View, Susan Schaefer, March 26

 

My heart goes out to these and other newspaper lovers around the world in danger of losing their daily fix, their connection to the world around them. Here’s hoping something valuable and sustainable comes out of their fights.

The difference between a business venture and a not-for-profit is not just that the latter is not intended to make money but that it exists for a different and specific purpose that offers some public or community benefit. These organizations, don’t have anyone who owns them, not shareholders, but they do have members who elect people to run the show. The members may pay a membership fee, but they have no direct pecuniary interest. Their interest should be in the purpose.

For their good works governments offer tax-free status, so these organizations can put all their resources, income, or donations to further their purpose.

Saving that proportion of your income isn’t the only implication of operating as a not-for-profit though. Not-for-profits don’t just have a bigger margin, they also operate differently.

The lack of shareholders means that they do not, they cannot, pay any dividends and don’t have to answer for financial return, nor do they have a stock price to follow. While there may be turnover in the board of directors and swaying opinions among the membership, unlike businesses they do not have to worry about changing ownership. They do still have short term challenges and concerns, but they can operate for the purpose and to principles over the long term.

In times of crisis and when times are tight not-for-profits may similarly have to make cuts like business do to survive. In better times, though, these organizations can invest in the future, not to make money, but to do better.

Many have suggested a not-for-profit structure for news operations. It is worth looking at.

Reporters and editors who work in the news business tend to already know principles of their work: Things like keeping the people informed as a pillar of democracy; Keeping the powerful in check and shining light on corruption; Helping people be connected in their communities; And participating in the public discourse.

Newspapers already serve two masters, the advertisers and the readers, not to mention those who might be public traded and owned by shareholders. As advertising goes down, choosing a not-for-profit structure would eliminate the shareholder influence, reduce the need for higher ad revenue, and allow news operations to focus on their readers and their principles.