Newspaper advertising woes expected to persist throughout the year

Sun Sentinel ^ | June 21 2006 | Aimee Picchi

[george76]

Tribune Co., Belo Corp. and Journal Register Co. said advertising sales continue to slump, signaling the newspaper industry's woes may extend this year.

Advertising sales in June "are soft and we expect first-half advertising to be flat," Donald Grenesko, chief financial officer of Chicago-based Tribune, the second biggest U.S. newspaper publisher in revenue and owner of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, said Tuesday at the Newspaper Association of America's Mid-Year Media Review in New York...

A protracted slowdown may mean increased investor pressure on publishers including Tribune, which is fending off calls from its second largest shareholder to break apart the business...the Chandler family...

[george76]

"Things remain very challenging," said Peter Appert, a publishing-industry analyst at Goldman, Sachs & Co., in an interview at the conference.

"If you are struggling to do zero to 2 percent advertising growth during a period of top economic growth, it does not bode well."

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

advertising sales continue to slump

Maybe print more liberal bias to boost your readership? It hasn't worked yet but that's the news media's standard solution.

[Proud2BAmerican]

As someone with a vested interest in this subject (I'm a copy editor and paginator for a daily newspaper in Hawaii), I'm curious to hear Freepers take on possible reasons for this.

The typical conservative rant would be "Readers are being turned off by the obvious liberal bias in newspapers"; but I wonder if it has less to do with bias (which I'm not debating here; major mass media IS liberal biased) and more to do with the proliferation of free sources of news (Internet, with its blogs, news sites, free online offerings; and radio).

[george76]

The largest stockholder in Tribune, with approximately 14.3% of the outstanding shares in the company...

While the Chandlers previously had owned 12.2% of Tribune's stock, their stake will increase as a result of the buyback, in which the family isn't selling any of its shares.

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/story.asp?story_id=94896630

[kjo]

Whatever the reason this is GREAT news. These people have been a defacto fourth branch of government for a very long time.

I'm sick of their arrogrance and their contempt for truth. It couldn't happen to a worse group of people.

[george76]

Sinking readership and revenue, because of biased and mediocre reporting, is finally taking its toll...

[Proud2BAmerican]

Well, if you're talking about the major news orgs. (e.g., NYT, et al.), then I'm with you.

But I kinda like having a paycheck each week, and I like to think we do a fairly decent job of covering local news here in Hawaii (although I obviously have my differences of opinion with the editors regarding news coverage).

[george76]

You are very brave to ask this question.

It is not just a conservative rant...

One example, We see our forests and our environment being destroyed by massive fires...over 56,000 new fires nationally year to date.

We got to this point where our air is being polluted by smoke, our rivers, lakes, and general water supplies are being polluted by ash, the fish and other wildlife is killed by the fires , the soils get so hot in these massive fires that all organic matter is killed, we waste a valuable renewal resource, we deny good paying jobs to our rural communities and families...

The main reason is because the foresters and other scientists are denied the ability to use their educational skills and their decades of experience in making the best scientific decisions. Rather it is often the clever Sierra Club lawyers who find weak, emotional judges to make scientific decisions.

To answer your question more directly...Where are the media reports on why the scientists are not making the final decisions on the forests, or in hunting, or in fishing, or in logging, or in mining...?

It is reasonable to conclude that the liberal media has an agenda to push. If any media source only presents one point of view 99 percent of the time, then that media is going to lose viewers...circulation will drop, and advertiser will go to another source for the potential customers.

[Mark]

Can't there be a comparison of left vs middle or even, Heaven forbid, RIGHT wing papers and ad revenue?

I've never seen it. I live in the greater L.A. area and subscribe to the Daily News. Compared to the LA Times, it's a breath of sanity. They do publish articles from the NY Times and other news services, though.

[stands2reason]

Awwwwww.... :-(


:-{



:-}



:-)



:-D BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


(I tried to keep a straight face...)

[stands2reason]

I think it's essentially lifestyle changes.

A lot of it is the internet, but mainly it's people under 40 aren't buying newspapers, and your customer base is literally dying off.

Pop doesn't read the newspaper after work with his pipe and slippers anymore.

[hauerf]

"These people have been a defacto fourth branch of government for a very long time."

One might also add that these people have been a defacto fifth column for a very long time.

[Tribune7]

ping

[Proud2BAmerican]

That's my impression as well. I mean, to an extent a lot of readers are turned off by the obvious liberal slant of most major newspapers; but from a financial standpoint, there's a ton of liberal readers who ought to feel happy about that bias.

I see a mentality in our own newsroom that's really troubling for the long haul; an inability to realize that adapation is necessary to survive, and the Internet can serve as a tool for increasing readership again. I tried to pitch the idea of leveraging all the online content that's available to improve the product but there's a prevailing mentality that if a news story doesn't appear in the NYT or AP wires, then it didn't happen.

[RJL]

As someone with a vested interest in this subject (I'm a copy editor and paginator for a daily newspaper in Hawaii), I'm curious to hear Freepers take on possible reasons for this.

I quit reading newspapers because of blatant and unfair liberal bias.

I’m 50 years old and have always been a reader. I had been reading the daily newspaper cover to cover since Jr. High School. But finally the liberal bias at the Mpls “Red” Star Tribune drove me away.

I then tried the St. Paul Pioneer Press and it was a bit better, but Brian Lambert, their “media reporter” never failed to slam Republicans or conservatives in his “media report”. The Pioneer Press also didn’t really cover Mpls and its suburbs very well and their delivery persons couldn’t get the paper closer to my front door than about 35 feet away, so I quit that newspaper as well.

After a few years I found FreeRepublic in 1998 and haven’t looked back. In fact I won’t even take the “Red” Star for free. They would occasionally deliver free copies of the “Red” Star to my house, it’s taken several phone calls and an offer to deliver a “free” ton of manure to their front door, but finally they almost never litter my yard with their newspaper.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I canceled my subscription to the Dallas Morning News because of the liberal bias. I can get it online but I rarely bother. I get all I need from Fox and FR.

The potential problem is that there must be funding for news gathering but currently it is mostly leftist propaganda so what is it worth. There is a market for objective reporting but there is precious little out there.

Save the trees, ignore the print media.