Here's my scorecard (send corrections if I've missed anything!):
No other newspaper companies will file for bankruptcy.
- WRONG. By the end of 2008, only Tribune had declared. Since then, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, Journal Register Company, and the Philadelphia newspapers made trips to the courthouse, most of them right after the first of the year.
- RIGHT: Hearst closed the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Gannett closed the Tuscon Citizen, making those cities one-paper towns. In February, Clarity Media Group closed the Baltimore Examiner, a free daily, leaving the field to the Sun. And Freedom is closing the East Valley Tribune in Mesa, which cuts out a nearby competitor in the Phoenix metro area.
- WRONG: Nothing similar to the Detroit arrangement has been tried elsewhere.
- WRONG, mostly: We did see a few other outright closings including the Ann Arbor News, and some eliminations of one or two publishing days, but only the Register-Pajaronian of Watsonville, Calif. announced it will go from six days to three, back in January.
- WRONG: This really falls in the department of wishful thinking; it's a strategy I've been advocating for the last year or so to follow the audience to the Web, jettison the overhead of printing and delivery, but retain the most profitable portion of the print product.
- WRONG AGAIN, but this one is going back into the 2010 hopper. Lack of capital by most of the players, and the perception or hope that values may improve, put a big damper on mergers and acquisitions, but there should be renewed interest ahead.
- RIGHT about Google, and Not Applicable about Bloomberg (but Bloomberg did acquire Business Week). The Google-NYT pipe dream still gets mentioned on occasion, but it won't happen.
- WRONG, at least on the mini-bust scenario. Certainly there were closings of various digital enterprises, but it didn't look like a tidal wave.
- RIGHT. There was a very low-key round two with fewer participants in January, without any announced outcomes, and that was it.
- WRONG, and way too optimistic. Full-year results won't be known for months, but the first three quarters have seen losses in the 30 percent ballpark. Gannett and New York Times have suggested Q4 will come in "better" at "only" about 25 percent down. My 12 percent reference was to newspaper share of the total ad market, a metric that has become harder to track this year due to changes in methodology at McCann, but the actual for 2009 ultimately will sugar out at about 10 percent.
- WRONG, and also way too optimistic. The March period drop was 7.1 percent, the September drop was 10.6 percent, and digital subscription didn't have much impact.
- WRONG, and too pessimistic. About half a dozen papers closed for good during the year.
- Hard to tell, but probably RIGHT. Nobody is really keeping track of how many hyperlocals are active, or their comings and goings. An authoritative central database would be a Good Thing.
- RIGHT, or close enough, although the year isn't over yet. As of Friday, December 11, the Dow is more than 19 percent ahead of its Dec. 31, 2008 closing level. (This prediction is the one that got the most "you must be dreaming" reactions last year.
- AND RIGHT ABOUT NEWSPAPERS BEATING THE MARKET (as measured by the Dow Industrials), which got even bigger laughs from the skeptics. There is no index of newspaper stocks, but on the whole, they've done well. It helps to have started in the sub-basement at year-end 2008, of course, which was the basis of my prediction. Those beating the Dow were: New York Times (+25%), AH Belo (+126%), Gatehouse (+350%), Lee Enterprises (+763%), McClatchy (+296%), Journal Communications (+56%), EW Scripps (+208%), Media General (+388%), Gannett (+65%) and News Corp. (+57%). Only Washington Post Co. (+6%) lagged the market. Not listed, of course, are those still in bankruptcy.
- NOPE.
- UNKNOWN: I'm not aware of a 2009 survey of this metric, but I'll wager that the median age figure is correct.
- UNKNOWN, as far as the subscription counts go: newspapers and Kindle have not announced e-reader subscription levels during the year. The Times now has at least 30,000, as does the Wall Street Journal (according a post by Staci Kramer last month; see my comment there as well.) There have been a number of new e-reader introductions, but none of them look much better than their predecessors as news readers. My guess would be that by year end, the Times will have closer to 40,000 Kindle readers and the Journal 35,000. During 2010, 75,000 should be attainable for the Times, especially counting all e-editions (which include the Times Reader and Newsstand.com additions along with the Kindle). The Times' total electronic circulation stood at 53,353 weekdays and 34,435 Sundays for the six months ending Sept. 30.
- RIGHT: plenty of rumors, but no color e-reader, except Fujitsu's Flepia, which is expensive, experimental, and only for sale in Japan.
- RIGHT: Hearst launched its topic pages site LMK.com. And various companies are working with EVRI, Daylife and others to bring aggregated feeds to their sites.
- MORE WISHFUL THINKING, although there's progress. Many reporters still don't blog, still don't tweet, and many papers are still on content management systems that inhibit embedded links.
- YES, we're seeing more sharing of content, with various financial arrangements.
- NOT SO FAR, although just this past week a new Open Government initiative was announcement by the White House. This grew out of some wiki-like public input earlier in the year.
- YES - kicked off in January, it's called WhoRunsGov.com.
- NO. Although the Times has continued to come out with innovative online experiments, this was not one of them.
- NO. This still seems like a good idea, but probably it should have happened in 2006 and the opportunity has passed.
- NO DEAL, so far. But RIGHT about Twitter beginning to falter and still having no "clearly attainable" revenue stream in sight. Twitter's unique visitors and site visits, as measured by Compete.com, peaked last summer and have been declining, slowly, ever since. Quantcast agrees.
- YES, as described in this post and this post. See also the blogs of Steve Buttry and Chuck Peters. The Cedar Rapids Gazette and its affiliated TV station and web site are in the process of reinventing and reconstructing their entire workflow for news gathering and distribution.
- RIGHT. Well, I'm not sure if it has generated renewed interest in journalism as a career, but the movie State of Play featured both print reporters and bloggers. And Julie of Julie and Julia was a blogger, as well.
5 comments:
I think that some of the predictions that fell into the WRONG category, should really be NOT RIGHT YET, especially the one about daily newspapers closing, the mini-dotcom bust of enterprises with no revenue stream, and the number of e-reader subscriptions. Technically that was in the UNKNOWN category, but I don't see how time will prove you wrong.
Thanks Conor,
I agree that some of the wrongs could turn out right in the long run, but this being predictions for calendar 2009, I had to score them as I did. Some will certainly roll into my 2010 predictions in some form.
Hi Martin: You're about the 1,001st person to STILL get Ann Arbor wrong. They reduced print publication from 7-days to 2 days (Thursday and Sunday). Those two print papers are good products, chock full of local news. And, more importantly, chock full of ad inserts. That's how they're making money!!! From the print product and those inserts. Yes, some of the press releases would like everyone to believe they've got the new digital religion, but it's all been a bit misleading. My father still gets the AA paper twice a week, and when I last visited, it was obvious they were making way more $$$ from the inserts than their online advertising or other digital products.
And, according to our 2008 research, the average age of newspaper readers in small markets, served by papers of 15,000 circulation or less, is 56 years old (not 60+). When you consider that's baby-boomer territory, and the boomers are the largest population segment with the most disposable income, that's not so bad. And I'd suspect that smaller communities/towns skew older than the major city markets.
Brian
Thanks for the correction, Brian! Those ad inserts are just about the last place daily papers still have some monopolistic pricing power, since supermarkets, coupon publishers and big box stores really don't have a better way to distribute them - although their tendency is to move in an online direction, especially for coupons. As noted in the post, I've mentioned often that the model of a once or twice-weekly paper, sopping up as much of the remaining print and insert advertising as possible, together with a kickass website, is probably the best sustainable model out there, and I think Advance's intent in Ann Arbor is to test that notion.
But is the twice-weekly AA print product still called Ann Arbor News? (I went to look this up at Wikipedia's entry for AnnArbor.com, but found that it cited my own blog post as a source, so I guess I can't rely on that.) At AnnArbor.com itself, they call it the "AnnArbor.com newspaper."
martin, good predictions, both right and wrong and uknown, and here is one for 2010 and the next few years. Print newspapers will increasingly become known as "snailpapers" (in an endearing yet impatient kind of way) since they arrive at our doorsteps in the morning with news that is routinely 12 hours late or more....
Google "snailpapers" now and see how much play it has already gotten as a new term. Even the Urban Dictionary has accepted it as a new word for our Digital Age. No one coined it, it just happened, and nobody gets credit for coining it. It sort of coined itself, and a cartoonist already did a cartoon on it, also google for Mary Susan MacDonald under snailpapers..... or see www.marytoons.com, she is in Toronto and see my 24/7/365 blog about snailpapers (and don't get me wrong, I am a snailpaper man, i love print, i dislike these damn screens, i am Mr Paper all the way, but I can see the handwriting, er, keyboarding, on the wall. See if snailpapers catches on in 2010, Martin. My blog here:
http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
NSFW, btw.
Danny E Bloom
Tufts 1971
Post a Comment