It’s the mindset that dooms them

Blogs that cover the cultural and economic effects of the Internet on newspaper publishing are all linking a couple of articles in The Economist about the latter’s dire straits:

For most newspaper companies in the developed world, 2005 was miserable. They still earn almost all of their profits from print, which is in decline. As people look to the internet for news and young people turn away from papers, paid-for circulations are falling year after year. Papers are also losing their share of advertising spending. Classified advertising is quickly moving online. Jim Chisholm, of iMedia, a joint-venture consultancy with IFRA, a newspaper trade association, predicts that a quarter of print classified ads will be lost to digital media in the next ten years. Overall, says iMedia, newspapers claimed 36% of total global advertising in 1995 and 30% in 2005. It reckons they will lose another five percentage points by 2015.

So what are newspapers to do?

Gal Beckerman, at CJR Daily, ends a summary of the piece with this little zinger:

If the only way to make newspapers profitable is to turn “fine journalism” into junk, than maybe we should start thinking about whether or not news is too precious a commodity to be subjected to the same economic rules by which one sells widgets or hamburgers.

That would be “free market” rules, right? Bring on state-subsidized newspapers!

Meanwhile Jeff Jarvis excerpts from this companion piece in a post titled “Who Saved the Treees?” — and notes that it ends hopefully. This is about change, after all. And change is only a threat if you aren’t willing to change with it.

I was thinking last night about how Google has made a fortune organizing content for people without regard to its quality while newspapers husband their content jealously — in essence, they place a higher value on the content than on peoples’ access to it. “This is so good, you have to pay to see it.” “If you want to read this, you have to register and maintain an account with us.”

It’s a completely different mindset. No wonder the newspaper industry is in flames.

Newspaper registration has to go

The lede from this piece (which I think was taken from an AP story run on CNN.com, although it’s not clear) sums it up perfectly:

Imagine if a trip to the corner newsstand required handing over your name, address, age, and income to the cashier before you could pick up the daily newspaper.

That’s close to the experience of many online readers, who must complete registration forms with various kinds of personal data before seeing their virtual newspaper…

I currently have a page of college-lined paper crammed with combinations of user names and passwords. Some of these are for accounts with companies who handle my money or credit card information. I can understand that.

But it’s to the point where I absolutely refuse to add more combos to this list. It’s insane.

If that means I don’t read some article online, so be it.

I’m not alone in my sentiments, of course. Here’s an argument by Adrian Holovaty that online newspaper registration is not only irritating, but self-defeating.

Everyone I’ve talked to (techies and non-techies alike) sees this type of registration as an extremely annoying barrier with no redeeming value. There’s no personal tie to a typical news-site registration account, no incentive to give accurate information or even care about who has access to your account . . .

(No, saying “Registered users get more highly-targeted ads!” isn’t enough. Neither is saying “The benefit of registration is that you get the content.” That’s nothing short of arrogant — and readers can and will get their regurgitated AP stories elsewhere.)

And here’s a post by Simon Willison that offers a link to a site called BugMeNot which provides user name/password combinations you can use to access newspaper sites.

Well, okay, that way you don’t have to go through the rigamorole of filling out the form. But you still can’t just read the article.

The worst offender by far, btw, is a certain online paper that doesn’t ask you to register when you first click on their article.

They wait until you’ve read 2/3 of it.

What are they thinking?

“Hey, let’s not just inconvenience our online audience — let’s try to infuriate them! Maybe we can make a killing selling ads for tranquilizers!”

You will never see a link to that site on this blog, I’ll tell you that.

New, improved fishwrap?

Jeff Jarvis posts a prescription for local news dailies. He suggests cutting out the following:

Stock tables
National business news
Local business news
Personal finance
Critics
TV Listings
Movie Listings
Entertainment listings
Sports columnists
National sports coverage
Sports agate
Comics
Syndicated advice columns
Food, home, fashion coverage
National and international news

“But what’s left?” you ask.

Answer: local news and politics. The improved coverage of which, Jarvis suggests, will actually make a difference in peoples’ lives . . .

Hmmmmmmm.