A few weeks ago I blogged about how I thought land line phones and cable TV would be among the first items to go as people cut budgets. In contrast Cell phones and internet would be among the last (can you imagine trying to find a job without an internet connection?)
Well I forgot to mention that newspapers would be the other obvious target… why spend to get a newspaper when you can get the content online for less or for free?
So I was probably rash in saying that traditional telephone companies (are there any left?) and cable companies would be among the first to feel the pinch. It is going to be newspaper companies. The end is going to come fast and furious. It won’t be pretty.
For my American friends there is already talk about how much trouble the New York Times is in. Indeed, as one industry observer points out, the NYT may not survive past MAY – although by drawing down on its credit and selling assets (like the Boston Red Sox’s) it can survive until 2010.
Here in Canada the situation is bleaker. CanWest, which owns the National Post as well as newspapers in most of the country’s major markets (such as the Vancouver Sun, here in my home town), has reported Q1 losses and its stock continues to free fall. Having lost 92% of its value in the last year it may no longer be able to meet its debt servicing requirements. It turns out that buying more newspapers is not the solution for newspaper companies. A bigger broken business model doesn’t, at some point, transform into a working business model.
The old modes of production are in trouble. Today it’s print, but TV/video better not assume the same pressures won’t be confronting them in the near future.
eaves.ca 
Everything old is new again – radio is the new media man!! – or maybe radios' convergence with the internet (which has actually been in place now for at least 10 years! – just hasn't been widely advertised. Tell me the internet isn't the best place to listen to english language Dutch radio talk shows without having to string together 2 styrofoam cups and transformer wires)Radio has been on the financial upswing for the last several years.its cheap, omnipresent and convergent-able.
…just dont let this recession touch my paper based New Yorker subscription…
“Cable” will be provided via the internet. Already companies like Rogers and Shaw are doing this. Satellite tech will get sleeker. Digital is in. I think you'll see the “pay per use” universe connect quickly. Companies can make more money from pay as you go. The overall cost of “channels” or “shows” will be more, but you'll get what you want. For example, you can buy one episode for a dollar, but if you paid $1/show to your cable company, you'd be in for $100s each month. The phone is already on the internet (not just Skype – I use Shaw, at my home and business – Shaw was $40/month vs. $75 for Telus – for the same features). Since your internet connection will replace your cable, you will pay roughly $30/month for a high speed connection, then the extra per month for the content (shows, music, etc.). Nice thing is, you can choose what you want. I love that networks are circumventing the cable and sat companies. I can watch the Daily Show for free, when I want. Better yet – YouTube lets me see anything that was very popular with a few clicks of a mousepad.If we have one worry in all of this: When I worked for the cable company, it was lack of bandwidth that caused issues, and the company was constantly clamping down on “abusers” (meaning, people who downloaded too much). They also employ packet sniffers to trace “illegal downloads” – to keep for Harper's new “Internazi” measures. Companies do claim they need to start charging more if all video is going to go “online”, and they claim that bandwidth is almost at it's breaking point right now. We need to push for free “open” wifi set up by municipalities, otherwise the “portal/internet” providers have us by the cajones. If I can get wifi from my gas company, or from the city-owned utility for pennies a day, vs. dollars, I will be a happy camper. The free wifi zones are a start. Since knowledge is becoming the backbone of our civilization and our modern economy (or should be), we can not let a handful of companies control all access to it. If these companies own/control all the servers, phone lines, cable lines, etc., then the method of delivery is tainted (they can control content, or see what you are doing, and charge for whatever they like), and we have no internet.
Cable and phones and such are easier to maintain than newspapers, because papers need to pay the salaries of skilled reporters, yet their profit doesn't come from selling the intangible product “news” (however good it is.) Their profit comes from advertising, and what really bites is the loss of classified ads.Yes, the classifieds are a thin shadow of even two or three years ago, mostly due to people finding online resources that are far better from their point of view — Kijiji, UsedEverywhere.com, eBay etc. And now with the recession, display ads are also thinning out.But, if the papers go extinct, exactly who is going to gather and disseminate the news? I explored this problem here: “Get Out The Pipecleaners Part I : You Can Hear Your News Arteries Narrowing” is here [ http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/08/… ]I listen in coffee shops sometimes to hear how often people say, “The news said…” or even “They said today…” bringing up a story or topic they heard or read in the news. Dozens of times, if I stay and drink coffee till I'm done with both papers. And they all have opinions about what they know or think they know about science, medicine, foreign affairs etc, regardless of their own personal experience in the field (generally zero.) Those opinions are generally structured by their most steady information source, generally newspapers or TV news. And like me, they vote.Losing the salaried footsoldiers of news-gathering is as great a threat to democracy as any army or boneheaded politician — more so, actually. It is going to be a problem.Noni
Well, Michael, I admit there is something wonderful about holding the magazine itself. But you can also audiopod the New Yorker, even though you miss the cartoons and some features, alas. Still, you can get them online at the New Yorker website. And if you have the New Yorker hard drive, every year, they offer an update disc – I have the complete archive accessible to read, and it's very handy when I am remembering back to a feature that I want to review again. For example, last night on CBC “The National”, they talked about the use of Checklists in surgery like it was news. But the New Yorker was WAY ahead of the curve on this one – see Atul Gawande's very comprehensive feature in the Dec 10, 2007 edition of the magazine.
Anne – totally on board with your comments on the New Yorker – that New Yorker website is the most innocuous looking piece of gold on the internet. You get all the extras too! – interviews and everything else you describe! (Thanks for the audiopod tip)But the feel of the New Yorker magazine snuggled up on my couch in the evening, shooting glances at the articles, flipping non-linearily through its secrets – ahhhhhhhh – I swoon…David – by the way – one of the best articles in recent memory is by Malcolm Gladwell in the December issue of the New Yorker on the difficulty of predicting the success of young NFL quarterbacks and young teachers and what can be done about it. Do you get a paper subscription as well when you purchase the hard drive? THAT would be sweet.I will do one favor back to you Anne – check out the NPR.org site. Nuff' said.Michael
David:This article from last year's New Yorker might interest you and your readers:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/0…
I think the threat to advertising budget is true of all media currently – Facebook and even the Google are battening down the hatches as advertising dollars dry up world-wide.However, beyond the revenue streams for newspapers (that is advertisers) centralized published media of any sort is going the way of the lamp-maker. They are under stiff existential threat.It was mentioned earlier that the death of newspapers threatens democracy. Even the most cursory review of contemporary newspapers reveals them to be distorting, pernicious and inflammatory sources of spin as much as any partisan mouthpiece. Their influence has been in majority, fundamentally malign. If state-owned newspapers are objects of suspicion, why is a publication owned by an unaccountable firm endowed with respectability or deference.Now that an alternative is present, people are seeking it.
I think the threat to advertising budget is true of all media currently – Facebook and even the Google are battening down the hatches as advertising dollars dry up world-wide.However, beyond the revenue streams for newspapers (that is advertisers) centralized published media of any sort is going the way of the lamp-maker. They are under stiff existential threat.It was mentioned earlier that the death of newspapers threatens democracy. Even the most cursory review of contemporary newspapers reveals them to be distorting, pernicious and inflammatory sources of spin as much as any partisan mouthpiece. Their influence has been in majority, fundamentally malign. If state-owned newspapers are objects of suspicion, why is a publication owned by an unaccountable firm endowed with respectability or deference.Now that an alternative is present, people are seeking it.