Wow. A blog friend, Robert Feinman, emailed this morning to point out just how few ads are in the dead-tree version (or is that the dead tree-version?) of today’s New York Times. An audit:
First section: In the entire national/international section, nine one-ninth-page ads roughly adding up to a page. The religion page boasts almost two-thirds of a page for Palm Sunday services (sadly, He rides into Jerusalem but once a year) plus two house ads. In metro, there are two ads adding up to about a quarter of a page plus three more house ads and paid obits.
Business section: Not one display ad. Plus six, four-line classifieds.
Sports: Not one display ad, but about a quarter of a page for the last gasp of classifieds.
Entertainment: G’bless show biz – 23 ads, none huge, adding up two two pages plus a quarter-page theater directory and another three house ads.
Grand total: 4.5 pages out of a total 44 pages, or slightly more than 10 percent. Note here that Tribune company wants a 50/50 ad/edit ratio (at its optimum, I’d bet The Times probably chose to operate at a higher proportion for edit). But for the sake of ease, let’s use the Tribune’s numbers. Also, note, by the way, eight house ads (what, not enough news out of the newsroom today?). Finally, note that I’m adding up my local New York edition; I’m sure there are fewer ads nationally.
Just how much revenue is missing from today’s edition? That’s hard to calculate given the different rates for different ad categories. But take entertainment (and please, please check my numbers, folks): The open rate is $840 per column inch and there are 126 column inches on a page, so a full page, bought once (with no volume discount) would cost $105,840. Business ads go for $1,541 per column inch; that totals to $194,166. Classified ads used to add up to a fortune per page; ah, those were the days. And there are other charges relating to color and position and such.
Just for the sake of round numbers on this envelope, let’s say that the 4.5 pages of ads today is worth about $650,000. Going by Tribune Company’s 50/50 goal, that would say that today’s edition is short $2.6 million. And mind you, it could be much more than that if there were more ads to justify a larger paper today.
But let’s stop there and say that today’s New York Times is a gift to you, dear readers, wherever you are, from the Sulzberger familiy and their fellow share and bondholders of a few million dollars.
Remember, The Times is still, so far as I understand, profitable; it is a still-strong newspaper brand. The Boston Globe is, of course, another matter and it is in today’s paper-thin edition that The New York Times Company reports it is threatening to shut down the Globe because it is losing $85 million a year now.
And it’s only going to get worse.
This is why I say there is no time to waste to make the transition to the next life for news. Print is simply no longer sustainable.
Around mid march I did the same calculation with a major Italian economic paper, comparing the latest issue with one of nov 2006 and found ads surface shrinked to 44% of old issue, and pages to 56%.
To be fair, it’s Saturday. Saturday (and Monday and Tuesday and, in some markets, Thursday) are losers that get carried by the big ad days of Wednesday, Friday and, the whopper, Sunday.
None of those four daily papers could make it on their own as a standalone business. But with Sunday itself shrinking, the numbers on those loss-leader days are becoming increasingly troublesome, leading more papers to consider reducing print frequency.
Funny thing is, at least for the last few years print ads have had incredibly small returns for the price. Ad money has never been under tighter scrutiny than now, and in discussions with colleagues and other business owners I’ve heard the same thing over and over; newspaper ads have not brought in business for quite some time.
My greatest ad returns have surpringly been my vehicles (emblazened, of course) and local business meetups. Both of which are orders of magnitude cheaper. It’s hard to believe they’ve sustained themselves thus far.
I wonder if newspapers should be looking at the music model. Many bands consider the sales of the songs (CD’s or online) as a form of advertising and get the bulk of their revenue from their road trips.
I see the Times has been sponsoring a series of talks, perhaps they should be looking to more live events. Look at all the money Larry Summers has been pulling down telling business leaders what they want to hear.
Could Floyd Norris or Gretchen Morgenson be turned into profit centers for the Times by appearing at corporate functions or having the Times run such things itself?
There’s some money there and the Times is getting it with its new auditorium but news ain’t rock ‘n’ roll and that won’t scale.
I was being facetious, I think the Times Talks and the like are lame.
We still don’t “get it”. Interactive media mean not schlepping to meetings and listening to dry talks. Perhaps the schmoozing at Davos is worth something, but then, perhaps there needs to be a new mechanism devised which makes use of modern technology.
If the only time a big wig can be exposed to new people is at a meeting then something fundamental is wrong. It isn’t only the president that lives in a bubble.
[...] The ongoing death of print media — Jeff Jarvis reports on the ads (or lack thereof) in this morning’s New York Times: First section: In the entire national/international section, nine one-ninth-page ads roughly [...]
As the cliché says, “Journalists write on the back of ads.”
With the decline in quality of news, and the increase in political bias, readers have been abandoning the NYT and other papers. When readers don’t see the ads, the ads don’t produce results — and eventually the advertisers catch on.
Going online won’t save papers when their journalism is worthless. Why would anyone want to read them?
@Pundit:
Please stop pedaling that “bias” trope.
It’s audience fragmentation. It’s endless choice causing people to abandon mainline print paper. Candidly, it’s a world in which people can choose news from a range as wide as Fox News to MSNBC to, hell, the Onion.
The left blames the Times for the Iraq war because of “biased” coverage. The right blames the Times for the Obama presidency because of “biased” coverage. Probably means they’re calibrated about right – but that calibration was made for a world of limited choice – a world that no longer exists.
“audience fragmentation”… “a world of limited choice”.
here’s a decent example– 17,000,000 served in march in a town of <100k (click my id above)
surely they’re not all fargoans… or even americans
Funny thing with the supposed liberal bias bringing down news organizations. While Fox News is gaining viewers, so is MSNBC and CNN according to Nielsen numbers. CNN in most respects remains the TV cable news leader according to the ratings service.
On the newspaper side, even though The Wall Street Journal has maintained stable circulation, Ruper Murdoch recently wrote down 40 percent of his $5.5 billion purchase price for the national newspaper. According to an earnings report in February, advertising at the conservative bastion is expected to be off at least 20 percent for the year. Things apparently aren’t rosy just for those on red end of the spectrum.
I’m not sure how those numbers translate to a clear repudiation of “liberal media” or their supposed bias. But I don’t think Mr. Evil Pundit is big on facts, just personal opinions.
Paul
Sorry to correct you but CNN is losing viewers faster than anyone. Latest ratings have Andersen Cooper behind everyone.
CABLE NEWS RACE
NIGHT OF MARCH 13, 2008
VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,979,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,280,000
FNC GRETA 1,896,000
CNN KING 1,640,000
FNC HUME 1,530,000
CNN COOPER 1,417,000
FNC SHEP 1,392,000
CNN DOBBS 1,057,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,001,000
CNNHN GRACE 605,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 507,000
CNN is poised to finish March third in the prime-time weeknight ratings behind Fox News Channel and MSNBC, the first time this has ever happened for the channel that pioneered the cable news genre nearly three decades ago.
Oops, you got me (though you reference 2008). Fox just finished it’s best quarter ever. Maybe all those folks who just elected Obama are tuning in to hear what the losing side has to say about that?
Barack Obama spent $1 Million Dollars on Styrofoam Greek Columns and $160 Million on a lavish over the top coronation. Yet the LIBERAL Media still bashes Sarah Palin over 150K in clothing. We just discovered the NY Times squashed a negative Obama-Acorn story cause they thought it was an election buster. Anyone who doesn’t recognize liberal bias in media is extremely dishonest.
Wait. Did you say that print media is no longer sustainable?
Not true!
Our local paper (the Nugget) is doing just fine, thanks. Oh wait, did I tell you that it’s free? And available in print and online?
(Cue up the government bailouts for large market print media, it’s going to happen. Guaranteed. 100% or your money back.)
> Print is simply no longer sustainable.
I think it’s more like general interest print is no longer sustainable.
I’ve got a cash positive, niche magazine in print (www.feedfront.com).
Niche magazines and print pubs will survive because they still reach enthusiastic fan bases and are portable (try taking your laptop to the beach). But those that don’t embrace opt-in marketing methods as part of their marketing mix are doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs.