FORTUNE -- The New Orleans Times-Picayune's decision to return to daily publication, reversing (sort of, in a way) its disastrous move a year ago to print a paper only three days a week, is being described by some observers as a salvo in an escalating newspaper war. The Advocate of Baton Rouge has invested big in covering New Orleans since the Times-Picayune's retreat. That paper is publishing a New Orleans edition, and it has hired a bunch of journalists away from the hometown paper, including some big names.
Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer has resumed publishing a newsstand edition on Saturdays after halting Saturday publication about two years ago. "This daily newspaper thing may be catching on," wrote David Carr in the New York Times on Sunday. "The much ballyhooed unmaking of daily newspapering seems to be unmaking itself."
Well, not really. Though the moves are certainly positive ones, it's much too early to conclude that daily newspapers are back, or even a quarter of the way back (of course, Carr knows this, as he makes clear). What some publishers seem to be realizing is that, for now at least, the only way to make any money with local and regional news covered by large staffs is by printing newspapers. Online ads sell for a tiny fraction of what print ads generate. Of course, circulation and print-ad sales are generally falling, too, but it's clear that, at the moment, most newspapers need to stick with print until they can figure out how to make money online, if there is a way.
While there are the predictable arguments from digital theoretician types that newspapers should just bag print altogether and go all-digital, they never seem to have a coherent answer for how papers are supposed to make money that way. The arrival of disruptive technology doesn't mean companies must turn on a dime, it means they have to wisely manage the transition into a largely unknowable future. If "legacy" assets are still making money -- even if much less than before -- there is little wisdom in shedding them all at once. There is equally little wisdom in holding on to those assets as their values shrink while ignoring the fact that your industry is under technological assault.
The trick -- and it is no easy one -- is to figure out how quickly to make the transition and how best to adapt to the changing world.
As Carr noted on Sunday, the only way newspapers can succeed is by producing quality journalism. Newspapers, particularly corporate-owned ones, started cutting back on staff well before the industry started to sink about a decade ago, and those cutbacks were indeed part of the reason for the industry's troubles. Reducing newsroom staff led naturally to lower quality, which in turn led to falling circulation and sinking ad rates. The Internet of course is the industry's main problem, but as critics of disinvestment have been saying all along, you can't cut your way to success.
"Newspapers that have cut their operations beyond usefulness or quit delivering a daily print presence have suffered," Carr wrote. "The audience has to be earned every day."
Which is just the opposite of what Advance Publications decided to do with the Times-Picayune a year ago. Carr described what has happened since as "a jaw-dropping blunder to watch." Advance emitted platitudes at the time (swallowed whole by the digital-enthusiast set) about how it was forging ahead into the online future, but it apparently hasn't invested much in either technology or staff. Its website is still terrible, fairly typically for a newspaper, and as the Columbia Journalism Review recently noted, the journalism certainly hasn't improved any, while the Advocate's growing presence and investments in staff seem to be paying off.
A couple of decades ago, newspapers were reliably earning margins of about 30%. Some were up near 50%. Such margins are never going to come back. Warren Buffett, who has been acquiring newspapers, recently said margins of 10% would represent a "decent return." It's possible that newspapers might end up somewhere around there, and thereby survive, but only if they pursue their core public-service function: informing citizens about important issues.
The Times-Picayune's failure to adhere to that mission was put into horrific context on Sunday, the day Carr's column was published. Nineteen people were shot during a second-line parade in New Orleans. Many residents of the city who would have liked to learn about what happened from their hometown newspaper were out of luck. Since many of them can't afford computers or mobile devices, they couldn't see what the Times-Picayune reported about the incident on Monday. Or on Tuesday. The first print edition that came out after the shootings was on Wednesday. For those people, the hometown paper was useless.
The "restored" editions of the paper won't be delivered to homes but available only at newsstands for 75 cents. It will be in a tabloid format and called TPStreet and also available to print subscribers as an "electronic edition." It seems unlikely that this will assuage the city that Advance has essentially abandoned, especially given the presence of a competitor that appears to be taking seriously its mission to cover the city.
Whether this amounts to a "newspaper war" remains to be seen. Carr quoted former Times-Picayune editor Jed Horne as saying it "could end up being two dinosaurs fighting over the last mud hole on an overheated planet."
The only hope for newspapers is that more of them will fall into the hands of owners, like Buffett, who are willing to accept lower profits in return for the opportunity to serve the public interest, which happens to be the only way they can make any money at all.
Less than 3% of adults tweet or retweet news links. It seems unlikely that Twitter will ever be a powerful news platform for the masses.
FORTUNE -- To hear certain Twitter enthusiasts (or as many of them are otherwise known, Twitter obsessives) tell it, the microblogging platform represents the future of news. In some ways, Twitter is already the present of news, since most big news organizations and many journalists use MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Mar 6, 2013 9:09 AM ET
Are we surprised that the blogo-twittersphere fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book?
FORTUNE -- Last week, a Swedish design firm called Day 4 mocked-up a 3-D rendering of an odd-looking screw and posted it on Reddit, hinting that it was Apple's (AAPL) latest attempt to keep users from messing with the innards of its devices.
In a matter of hours, news of the "asymmetric screw" had spread across MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Aug 14, 2012 11:34 AM ET
Instead of cutting its losses on ABC by exploring a spinoff of the dragging network, Disney is reportedly doubling down in a deal with Univision. None of it makes sense.
By Cyrus Sanati, contributor
FORTUNE -- Is it time for Disney to finally banish ABC from the Magic Kingdom? The media conglomerate's broadcast division was yet again the only real bruise in what would have been a relatively blemish-free quarter. ABC's anemic growth rate, coupled MOREFeb 8, 2012 10:51 AM ET
The one-man brand produces TV, chats up stars, and woos advertisers. He's an emblem of where show biz is headed.
By Daniel Roberts, reporter
FORTUNE -- Get ready to see more Kim Kardashian. If television executive and personality Ryan Seacrest represents the future of media -- and many entertainment moguls think he does -- then the world should gird itself for more reality TV and more shows like Keeping Up With the MOREJan 3, 2012 5:00 AM ET
The question of whether or not Google is actually a species of media company has dogged it since its early days. Truth is, it's missing one key characteristic.
By Ben Elowitz, contributor
FORTUNE -- Since Google's early rise, this question has consumed hordes of those watching it: Is Google a technology company or a media company? Paradoxically, Google has continuously defied the dichotomy, seeming to succeed in media precisely by maintaining that MOREAug 24, 2011 8:10 AM ET
By churning out loads of lowbrow celebrity gossip and the like, HuffPo hopes to be able to draw the traffic necessary to finance more serious content -- just like newspapers do.
FORTUNE -- The Huffington Post, which built its business largely by aggregating and summarizing news stories reported and written by others, on Monday suspended a young technology writer for aggregating and summarizing a story written by someone else. Also on Monday, MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Jul 12, 2011 1:25 PM ET
In a rare 1997 Q&A, Steve Jobs talks about killing products, taking lumps and saying "no"
I don't known where he found it, but a YouTube user who calls himself superapple4ever has put his hands on a video of Steve Jobs doing a Q&A at the end of Apple's (AAPL) 1997 Worldwide Developers Conference -- his first after he returned to the company.
The full video, posted here, runs for more than MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 17, 2011 12:37 PM ET
Bloomberg Television is still stuck in Siberia in the Comcast channel lineup, and it's right to ask the FCC to step in.
FORTUNE -- One of the main worries surrounding Comcast's (CMCSA) merger with NBC Universal was that Comcast would use its cable platform to favor its own programming at the expense of competitors. From the beginning, the financial news organization Bloomberg has issued perhaps the loudest complaints about the situation. MOREDan Mitchell, contributor - Jun 15, 2011 11:11 AM ET
A leaked presentation on its "master plan" and its abysmal earnings report only confirm that AOL needs a new way.
By Dan Mitchell, contributor
Ken Auletta's profile in The New Yorker of AOL CEO Tim Armstrong last month was a grim assessment the company's prospects and a scathing indictment of the quality of AOL's content -- much of which, Auletta wrote, is "piffle." The company, he seemed to conclude, is more likely MOREFeb 2, 2011 2:36 PM ET
|Make $30 an hour, no bachelor's degree required|
|McDonald's gives Charles Ramsey free food for a year|
|The 'chicken poop' credit and other bad tax breaks|
|Why Waze is a hot takeover target|
|Where your donation dollars go|