Heeding the call for finding the new media business models...

By Tom Foremski - November 18, 2005

By Tom Foremski, Silicon Valley Watcher

My posts over the past few months on the subject of what happens if the old media dies before the new media learns to walk have been picking up a fair amount of interest out.

On Monday, I called for partners to work with SVW to help figure out what the new media will look like.

And I've already got several companies that are very interested in what could very well turn into a historic project. And there are a few other key companies that could very well become involved too, I'm getting quite excited at the possibilities...

Here is my post from this week:

What happens if the old media dies too soon? The urgent need for solid online news media business models

Also, please read the comments, one from Kevin Maney, a newbie blogger from USA Today ;-)

Also:

Editor&Publisher reports:

More Than 1,900 Newspaper Jobs Lost in 2005 Aya Kawano


By E&P Staff

Published: November 17, 2005 1:55 PM ET

NEW YORK It has not been a kind year for the newspaper industry.

With costs rising and circulation on the decline, newspaper companies have responded by trimming a considerable portion of their staffs this year. A review of past news reports offers up a startling number: more than 1,900 jobs have been cut from major and mid-sized newspapers over the past year. That figure does not include cuts at many smaller papers that don't often garner the same headlines.

E&P put together a list:

2005 NEWSPAPER CUTS

TRIBUNE


PAPER DATE # OF CUTS
Newsday 9/1 49
Hartford Courant 10/6 14
Baltimore Sun 11/11 75
Orlando Sentinel 11/16 TBD
LA Times 11/16 85
Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.) 11/16 12
Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) 11/16 8
Chicago Tribune 11/16 ~100

NEW YORK TIMES CO.
PAPER DATE # OF CUTS
NY Times 5/25 125
NEMG 5/25 65
NY Times 9/20 250
NEMG 9/20 160
Regional Media Group 9/20 80

KNIGHT RIDDER
PAPER DATE # OF CUTS
Philadelphia Inquirer 9/20 75
Philadelphia Daily News 9/20 25
San Jose Mercury News 9/23 52

HEARST
PAPER DATE # OF CUTS
SF Chronicle 8/1 120
Houston Chronicle 8/19 125

OTHERS
PAPER DATE # OF CUTS
The (Durham, N.C.) Herald-Sun/Paxton 1/5 81
Seattle Times 1/14 99
Dow Jones Consumer Electronic Publishing 1/26 97
Boston Herald/Herald Media 4/4 35
Green Bay News-Chronicle/Gannett 5/19 14
St. Louis Post-Dispatch/Lee 8/22 130
Birmingham (Ala.) Post-Herald/Scripps 9/22 43
Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001524144



Share this article

 Subscribe in a reader

By Tom Foremski - November 18, 2005 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Media Watch
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile

Comments (1)

Dennis Howlett:

Much as I'd like to believe you're right Tom (I too derive the majority of income from 'blog' related activity), I'm not convinced we're anywhere near understanding the kinds of media model that will be sustainable. And that's the key word - sustainable.

Great content of itself and an avid readership are not enough. Look at 451.com. OK - so there were issues around funding, staffing and arguably timing but are 'we' so sure the fundamentals have changed forever?

Google's ad revenue model is a one-trick pony and here I agree with Nick Carr. What happens, when, as is inevitable, the cycle changes? Is it really that revolutionary? I don't think so. I believe instead that advertisers have finally figured out that scatter gun v precision is a no-brainer contest.

Online media that uses the blog metaphor (as I prefer to term it) has many potential revenue models but as yet, none has been proven of mutual and sustainable value. That's a time thing and sponsors/advertisers will need to take risks. But how?

For instance, in a sponsorship model, where is the line between sponsor influence and independence? Is it perceived as any different to the ad model used in both on and off-line worlds by those commissioning the ads or sponsor deals? Could knowledgable folk who create compelling content influence strategy? Would that be desirable? Could a single contract win for an enterprise vendor that had, as its starting point, an article written on a blog style site, be a justification for continued sponsorship? If so then that really would be a sea change because to date, media has ALWAYS been realtively low down the list of influence when customers think about buying decisions.

Having said that, I detect a whiff of change. I see some organisations that recognise the value of 'focused attention influence.'

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The trick will be to ensure the values of the past are used to inform the models of tomorrow. That's because nothing happens in isolation or spontaneously. There's always a backdrop.

But then like anyone with an interest in this area: 1. I have an agenda 2. I am biased in favour of my agenda. Hopefully though, I'm not blinkerred by those forms of bias.

Posted: November 19, 2005 8:36 AM

Post a comment