The editor of the Los Angeles Times mused this week that online revenue exceeded the payroll costs of his newsroom.

Very quickly people have drawn conclusions of a new era arriving. In his latest post, Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine suggests it's time to close the printing plant.

Others I've seen on Twitter and elsewhere have suggested this is ammunition that a corner has been turned and new media has gained new viability.

 A few things need to be added to the jubilance, though:

1. A newsroom isn't simply about payroll. Its expenses are formidable, from the equipment it uses to the travelling it does to the office space it occupies. It has legal expenses to protect its work from lawsuits. It has all sorts of expenses for non-local content. It has benefit expenses outside of payroll. So, there are many more steps to go before newsroom costs are met.

2. A sales force is not obviously self-liquidating. It is a significant cost against revenue. The online revenue may equal the newsroom's payroll, but the expense against that revenue isn't.

3. A lot of online newspaper advertising is tied into print buys. Sever that connection and my sense is that a lot of that revenue vaporizes.

4. The disappearance of a print product does not force advertisers into the online space. First it forces them to find other print products that might produce similar results. In other words, the purchasing decision isn't for the brand, but for the medium.

5. A news operation doesn't have an audience merely because it exists. It depends on extensive and sustained marketing in a community, and that marketing is most reliably done by --- ta, da --- the newspaper box and the display rack near a checkout counter. Other external advertising exists (and would have to be paid for). And, of course, a newsroom often markets itself best by telling its audience --- in this case, the newspaper readership --- about the online activities. In-house advertising is phenomenally effective and important. Lose the paper and you lose that advantage.

6. No matter how journalists might think otherwise, there are substantial overhead or central costs to their operations: technical backbone to ensure they can gather and distribute, finance operations to ensure they're paid, human resources to ensure they're treated properly, legal to ensure they're compliant with authorities and laws, and on and on.

7. While it's true that an online-only newsroom would lose many editing and design functions of a paper, that's a minor measure considering the expense necessary to create  a properly digitized newsroom (video, interactivity, moble, etc.)

It's naive to think of the newsroom as a breakaway republic that can live on its own. So, hold the trumpets a little bit. There are still steps to go before anyone has the credibility to suggest the printing plant could be shuttered.

 


Comments

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:33:40

Thoughtful commentary here on a very real dilemma. I'm not sure how many people realize how profound an effect the disappearance of the tangible would have - I caught myself thinking yesterday, when I found a book I'd obviously ordered online and then filed on my bookshelf because the 'to read' stack was becoming a tower, that I had no memory of buying it at all (and in fact wondered where it had come from for a minute). I doubt that would have happened if I had actually walked into a bookstore, browsed the section, and read the first paragraph (or even the back cover blurb) before buying.

And you are SO right re the close to the checkout/newspaper box thing. Last time I worked in a bookstore we had two books on napkin folding languishing for months in the crafts section and then mysteriously another 16 arrived on head office breakdown (obviously a computer glitch because we hadn't sold any). In despair, I put them on the counter by the cash and they suddenly became our new bestseller. I quit before head office could send another 50 though. :)

 

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:22:09

Thanks for sharing the deep + incisive thoughts, Kirk. This issue has really stuck a chord in the tweetosphere.

I won't get into how newsrooms parse and allocate their myriad expenses here; suffice to say I'm sure it's quite complex and, as you know better that I, each newsroom undoubtedly has it's own formulas and accounting methods.

What I would like to address is your point #5. Over my past two years at the LAT, we've seen that cross-over from in-house print advertising and promotions to the digital realm is very low among readers (hovering around 10%).

Loyal seven-day subscribers remain seven-day subscribers and web afficinadoes remain glued to the web.

Granted, we can't track the effect of every single mention or impression of "latimes.com" in the offline/print realm, but where we have we've seen consistent results.

Look forward to hearing your follow-up thoughts.

- Andrew, LAT Social + Emerging Media guy / see http://www.latimes.com/sm for details of this new role

 

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:38:20

Andrew:

Interesting new role you've got. It should be fascinating in the time ahead.

Our experience is a little different than yours on cross-over: Our readers use our site extensively. What it's led us to conclude is that our site is the prime breaking-news and information vehicle and the paper is the prime depth, context and commentary vehicle.

We've made changes to both entities in recent months to reflect those roles.

Which is not to say the two audiences won't diverge at some point. It may just be that we're still in the early stage of development and our readers are the first ones to find us.

Anyway, my central point was that it's an interesting development to have online revenue equal payroll --- one of many steps before we could contemplate a lesser printing plant.

 



Leave a Reply


DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058