Nathan Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft and perhaps the smartest guy around, gives his take on the future of newspapers. From Bloomberg. 

Deadline Approaches on Survival of Newspapers

By Nathan Myhrvold - Jan 22, 2012

These days, one of the saddest stories on Page 1 is about newspapers themselves. All over the country, venerable old dailies are shedding reporters, editors and other workers.

In my hometown, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stopped its presses for good in 2009, as did the Rocky Mountain News, in Denver. In the past few years, major papers have gone bankrupt in Philadelphia, Minneapolis and other cities, as circulation and advertising revenue have plummeted. Even the proud New York Times recently needed a $250 million loan from Carlos Slim, a Mexican multibillionaire.

Just a decade ago, newspapers were still the primary conduit for local information. Where else could the neighborhood furniture store advertise a sale; the local factory attract new workers; or town residents sell their used cars or sofas? The paper used to be dropped daily on almost every stoop in town.

For much of the early 20th century, the newspaper business was both profitable and competitive. New York City still had seven dailies in 1960, spanning a full range of political philosophy and journalistic style. Movies such as “Citizen Kane” and “The Front Page” portrayed an era when driven newspapermen would do anything to get a story. The U.K.’s rough-and-tumble Fleet Street remains something of a throwback to that era, as demonstrated by the recent phone-hacking scandal -- which led to the demise of yet another century-old paper, the News of the World.

Selling the News

The great winnowing of the industry began slowly, as the rise of television siphoned off much of the national advertising business. Even then, most cities retained one or two papers operating profitably as monopolies or duopolies. Newsrooms took this privileged economic position for granted; they began thinking of themselves as selling news rather than ads. Competition based on journalism, they rationalized, would drive readership, and ad revenue would follow.

In market research I did at Microsoft Corp. in the early 1990s, I estimated that the Wall Street Journal took in about 75 cents per copy from subscribers, $1.25 at the newsstand and a whopping $5 per copy from ads. The ad revenue let them run a far bigger newsroom than subscribers were paying for. It was a bargain for readers and a boon for journalists, who were able to travel to distant assignments and do in-depth reporting.

The trouble was, the tie between excellent journalism and revenue worked only so long as the ads did. New online formats gutted the newspaper-ad business. Why pore over tiny print looking for a job in the want ads when you can tap a few keywords into monster.com, then click through and apply? Why pay a steep per-character rate for a classified when you can hawk a whole garage full of used stuff on EBay or Craigslist for free? In so many ways, Match.com, OkCupid.com and hundreds of others offer a better experience than personal ads can. RottenTomatoes.com tells you what movies to watch, Fandango.com lets you book the tickets, and OpenTable.com gets you a dinner reservation.

Newspaper websites tried offering these services, too, but it wasn’t their strength, and they failed to keep up. It didn’t help that online sites such as Google News could serve up most of the news without ever hiring a reporter; they just aggregate information from many free news sites. Newspapers’ trump card had been the local information that they alone offered, but the Internet was simultaneously better at both local and global information distribution.

At least when television burst on the scene in the 1950s, it largely spared classified and truly local advertising. It also created its own journalism; some of the revenue that television diverted from newspapers was reinvested in TV news. In contrast, the new forms of Internet advertising rarely support news gathering, or content creation of any sort. Instead, most of the ad money now goes to infrastructure technology that connects people with ads, search engines such as Google, or social networks such as Facebook.

Who Will Pay

The dilemma for early 21st century journalism is this: Who will pay for the news? This column is part of an experiment in one direction. Bloomberg makes its money providing proprietary financial information to subscribers, and this business has not been hurt by the Internet, so it can afford to offer a good old- fashioned op-ed page without ad subsidy. As the saying goes, it’s nice work if you can get it. But this model won’t extend very far because there aren’t a long list of similarly situated data providers dying to support journalism.

Filmmakers and book publishers have never relied much on advertising revenue; when we want to read “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” or watch “Avatar,” we know we need to pay without an ad subsidy. Would the public be willing to pay full price for journalism, too?

A few newspapers -- the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times -- have started selling digital-only subscriptions. It’s a first step, but they still plainly consider their print editions to be the gold standard, so they generate little unique digital content and fail to tap the full potential of online news. Tellingly, their current web revenue falls far short of what it would take to support their newsrooms. Meanwhile, most online news sites are still free, which tends to undercut the business model of those who charge.

The situation reminds me of the early 1970s, when cable arrived in our neighborhood, and the adults in my family were arguing over why anybody would pay for something they could already get free. After all, with a set of rabbit ears, you could tune in three major networks and plenty of local affiliates, all supported entirely by ads.

Quality Cable TV

Initially, cable providers offered the same channels as conventional broadcasters did, so picture quality was the selling point. Cable cut down on ghosts and snow and having to fuss with an antenna. Once improved reception got cable-TV operators going, they shifted their selling proposition toward quality -- and quantity -- of programming. Ted Turner started CNN. Others started HBO, MTV and Discovery, betting that consumers would pay for a kind of television they never had before.

It took 20 years, but the cable-TV industry prevailed. A generation grew up thinking “I want my MTV.” Today, 85 percent of American households subscribe to cable, satellite or telephone-company TV, paying an average of $82 a month, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. This revenue has been a bonanza for TV production, financing some of the best television shows ever made, all outside the original broadcast networks.

Could newspaper journalism likewise entice readers to pay for online news? People like quality journalism, so I believe that, ultimately, they can be persuaded to pay for it. But as with cable, the price will have to start low; it can then inch upward as the public gradually accepts the new business model.

The question is whether paid-subscription news sites can make the transition fast enough to make up for their plummeting ad revenue. It takes time to persuade people to pay for something they expect to get free. Ultimately, the change will happen, but maybe not fast enough to save some of the great institutions of newspaper journalism.

(Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief strategist and chief technology officer at Microsoft Corp. and the founder and chief executive officer of Intellectual Ventures, is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

From MediaPost- full story here

Print, Radio Revs Braced For 2012 Declines

by Erik Sass, Jan 25, 2012, 5:32 PM

2012 doesn’t hold much hope for some of the main traditional media categories, including newspapers, magazines and radio, judging by the latest advertising forecast from MagnaGlobal, which sees revenue losses for all three media. The declines come amid growing competition from online advertising, as well as continuing economic uncertainty.

Total U.S. radio advertising revenues will decrease 0.8% in 2012, according to MagnaGlobal, which also predicts declines of 5.2% for magazines and 6% for newspapers. These drops are especially noteworthy because MagnaGlobal forecasts overall U.S. advertising growth of 2% to just shy of $150 billion, when Olympic and political advertising are discounted. Including these special categories, total advertising will grow 3.7% to almost $153 billion.

This growth will have to come from other media. Thus, MagnaGlobal sees Internet media jumping 10.9%, due mostly to continued increases in paid search, online video, and burgeoning mobile advertising. Broadcast TV will grow 8.5% in 2012, largely on the strength of the Olympics and political ads. Outdoor media will experience more modest but sustained growth, with a 4% increase in 2012.

MagnaGlobal explained the misfortunes of radio and print, as well as the slow growth rate for media in general: “A weak economic environment and high unemployment (forecast to remain above 8%) will result in cautious consumption growth and marketing expenditure."

The new forecasts for magazines and newspapers are especially ominous, coming on the heels of earlier declines. Through the third quarter of 2011, newspapers have experienced 21 straight quarters of year-over-year revenue declines, according to the Newspaper Association of America, and the fourth quarter is expected to bring another revenue decline.

Total magazine ad pages dropped 8% in the fourth quarter of 2011, following a 5.6% drop in the third quarter -- ending an anemic recovery, as sustained growth failed to take hold after the downturn of 2008-2009.

From Marketingcharts.org - full story here

Also see story below we linked to about the gross overestimates routine for online advertising.

US Online Ad Spend Set to Exceed Print (Update)

US online ad spending will exceed the total spent on print magazines and newspapers this year for the first time, according to a January 2012 eMarketer estimate that projects $39.5 billion in online ad spending, $19.4 billion in newspaper ad spending, and $15.4 billion in magazine ad spending. eMarketer estimates that online ad spending will continue its dramatic growth to reach $62 billion by 2016, while the print total will continue to decline to $32.3 billion that year.

US online ad spend is expected to grow by 23.3% this year, with double-digit growth continuing through 2014 before slowing to 8.9% in 2015 and 7.8% in 2016.

TV Growth Unaffected

As online ad spending grows, so will TV, albeit more slowly, notes eMarketer, which estimates that US TV spending will reach $72 billion in 2016. At that point, the gap between TV and online ad spending will be $10 billion, compared to the $28.7 billion gap seen in 2011.

Overall, eMarketer projects total media ad spending to grow 6.7% this year to $169.5 billion, boosted by national election campaigns and gains in mobile spending. Growth will remain between 3-4% through 2016, with spending reaching almost $200 billion by then. And while online will be a major driver of that growth, traditional ad spending will for the most part stagnate during the period.

Q1-Q3 ‘11 Ad Spend Up 1.5%

Total US advertising expenditures in the first 9 months of 2011 increased 1.5% from the previous year, finishing the period at $104.7 billion, according to December 2011 data from Kantar Media. Spending growth slowed during Q3, up 0.4% compared to 2010, after rising 4.1% in Q1 and 2.8% in Q2. Spending among the 10 largest advertisers in the first 9 months of 2011 was $11.8 billion, representing a 1.4% decline compared to the previous year. Procter & Gamble maintained its top-ranked position with spending of $2.1 billion through September, down 5.6% compared to 2010, although its Q3 spending was flat compared to the previous year.

Meanwhile, expenditures for the 10 largest categories grew 3.1% in the first 9 months of 2011, to $59.5 billion. For Q3, the aggregate increase was 1.8%, although quarterly growth rates for 7 of the 10 categories trailed their year-to-date average. Automotive was the top category with $9.9 billion of spending during the 9-month period, up 7% from 2010. However, the bulk of the gain came early in the year, and from April through September automotive budgets grew just 1%.

TV Ad Spending Rises

Most forms of TV displayed spending gains in Q3 2011: expenditures on cable networks rose 6.5% during Q3, while year-to-date outlays grew 9.9%. Network TV registered its first quarterly gain of the year, as Q3 expenditures inched up 0.2%, although year-to-date expenditures remained down 5.7%. Kantar insight suggests higher budgets from movie studios and consumer package goods marketers accounted for the Q3 increase for network TV, while the year-to-date decline can be attributed to the loss of marquee college football and basketball programming to cable networks in Q1.

Meanwhile, ad spending in Spanish Language Television jumped 18% during Q3 2011 compared to Q3 2010, while syndication TV was also up 14.8% for the period. The only TV segment to lose ground was spot TV, where spending fell 5.7% year-over-year in Q3, and was also down 2.7% for the year-to-date.

Overall, compared to the corresponding periods in 2010, TV ad spending grew 2.3% for the year-to-date, and 3.2% for Q3.

The top 10 TV advertisers, led by Procter & Gamble, spent $7.3 billion in the medium during the first 9 months of 2011, up 0.1% from a year ago. The group accounted for 15% of total TV expenditures by all advertisers.

Most Other Media Also Post Gains

Outdoor spending slowed during the third quarter, but still registered gains of 3.2% for Q3 and 8.6% for the first 9 months. The pace of spending in radio media was more muted, but remained steady, up a modest 1.1% in Q3 and 1.2% for the year-to-date, driven by over 2% growth in local radio and network radio advertising.

Magazine media spending declined 1.2% for Q3, but rose 1.5% for the year-to-date. The top 10 magazine advertisers invested $2.7 billion in the medium for the year-to-date, a decrease of 2.8%. As a proportion of total magazine ad spending by all advertisers, the top 10 accounted for 17.1%.

Although the internet sector posted a Q3 2011 drop of 2.9% compared to last year, overall expenditures for the year-to-date were up 2.8% compared to a year earlier. Display ad expenditures soared 15.8% in Q3 and 10.1% for the year-to-date, offsetting paid search drops of 14.4% and 2.1%, respectively. The 10 largest internet advertisers, led by General Motors, invested a total of $1.8 billion in paid search and display campaigns, up 11.1% versus a year ago, and accounting for 10.8% share of all internet ad dollars.

Newspapers Fare Poorly

The newspaper sector posted the worst figures of all media, experiencing a 3.7% decline in spending in Q3 2011 compared to Q3 2010, and 3.8% decrease for the year-to-date. Local newspapers, despite robust budgets from local auto dealers and an uptick in financial advertising, saw a 4.4% spending decline in Q3, and were down 3.9% year-to-date.

Print Media Get Spending, Lack Consumption

Meanwhile, according to December figures from eMarketer, although newspapers accounted for 15% of all US ad spending in 2011, they held just a 4% share of adults’ daily media time. Magazines also held a much larger share of ad spending than daily media time, at 9.7% and 2.8%, respectively.

By contrast, eMarketer estimated that mobile accounted for 10.1% share of adults’ media time each day, but less than 1% of ad dollars. TV (42.5% vs. 42.2%), internet (25.9% vs. 21.9%), and radio (14.6% vs. 10.9%) all also displayed a higher share of adults’ daily time than share of US ad spending.

eMarketer notes that time spent with the internet excludes internet access via mobile, but online ad spending includes mobile internet ad spending. As such, the total of the ad spending share for all the media adds up to more than 100%.

The promotion will run through March 9. The NYT’s Media Decoder, which announced the news ahead of the official Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS) announcements (here and here), reports:

The Nook edition of People is $9.99 a month; with a one-year subscription, customers will receive a Nook Tablet, a color device with a 7-inch display, for $199, a discount from its regular price of $249. Customers who buy a one-year subscription for the Nook edition of The New York Times for $19.99 a month, which includes access to NYTimes.com (NYSE: NYT), will receive a black-and-white Nook Simple Touch free or a Nook Color for $99.

The Nook Tablet is discounted by only $50, but that brings it down to the price of the Kindle Fire. The Nook Color is heavily discounted, by $100. The Nook Simple Touch is normally $99. The total cost of a one-year People subscription on Nook is $119.88, and the total cost of a one-year NYT subscription on Nook is $239.88.

Barnes & Noble announced last week that it may spin off its Nook business, though CEO William Lynch said in a CNBC (NSDQ: CMCSA) interview that B&N stores and Nook would “continue to have a very symbiotic relationship.” This promotion is intended to showcase Nook Newsstand, which Barnes & Noble sees as one of the fastest growing parts of the Nook business.

More significantly, the promotion opens the door for other retailers—ahem, Amazon—to start offering free or discounted e-readers or tablets with content subscriptions. Nothing was preventing Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) from doing that before, of course, but I would not be surprised to see it respond now with an offer of its own for Kindle Fire Newsstand subscribers.

It is our understanding that Time Inc. (NYSE: TWX) and Barnes & Noble are sharing the cost of the discounted Nook Tablet that comes with the Nook People subscription. The New York Times says it is “not divulging terms of our agreement with Barnes and Noble.”

Marketers More Bullish Than Agencies on Traditional Media Spend

A greater proportion of marketers than agencies believe that spending on traditional media such as direct mail (25% vs. 17%), print (22% vs. 8%), and radio (18% vs. 3%) will increase this year as compared to 2011, with the proportions expecting spend to increase on TV relatively on par, according to a survey released in January 2012 by RSW/US. And although the survey shows that increases in digital media spending will outpace that of traditional media, marketers’ planned increases do not appear to match agency expectations: a higher proportion of agencies than marketers expect spending to increase in social media (89% vs. 63%), mobile (72% vs. 46%), SEO (66% vs. 48%), and banner advertising (55% vs. 30%).

According to December 2011 figures from Kantar Media, outdoor (3.2%), TV (3.2%), and radio (1.1%) led all media in Q3 2011 year-over-year ad spend gains, while internet and newspaper ad spending declined 2.9% and 3.7%, respectively.