SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New York Times CEO Mark Thompson says he expects the end of the physical newspaper in 20 years:
The New York Times was founded in 1851, but it would surprise outgoing CEO Mark Thompson if the physical paper made it to 2040.
"I believe the Times will definitely be printed for another 10 years and quite possibly another 15 years — maybe even slightly more than that," Thompson told CNBC's A View from the Top. "I would be very surprised if it's printed in 20 years' time."
More than 900,000 people subscribe to the print version of the newspaper, said Thompson. At its current subscriber levels, the paper could be printed seven days a week at a profit without a single advertisement, he said.
But as readers become more accustomed to reading the Times on smartphones, tablets and computers each year, a printed paper is clearly a dying form. The New York Times Company reported last quarter that total digital revenue exceeded print revenue for the first time ever. Print advertising fell more than 50% year over year from last quarter, driven by both secular declines and the pandemic. Thompson told CNBC he doubts that advertising will ever come back.
"I'm skeptical about whether it will recover to where it was during 2019 levels," Thompson said. "It was already in year-over-year decline for many years. I think that decline is probably inexorable."
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:20AM (4 children)
The problem is NOT what's commonly trotted out: "virtual beats physical", "atoms versus electrons", blah blah blah.
The reason people are giving up on papers, and to a lesser extent magazines, is personalized content versus non-personalized.
Google/Facebook/LinkedIn/promotional emails now feed you all the personalized news and content you want -- things tailored to what you're interested in at the time. Newspapers and magazines are still stuck in the non-personalized era: mass media news, common ads, common everything.
Unless newspapers print "The Daily You" - at least as an insert to the main paper - and keep personalization locked up in their online editions - they're doing down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:53AM (2 children)
I disagree. Personalization is pushed by the internet advertising giants (as the reason for their existence), but I think most people will still balk at the idea of preferring to consume news that promises to be "tailored to them". It would make them aware they are being filter bubbled.
IMO, the reason why people are giving up on papers is because the national news is available, for free, through *many* different outlets. There are probably people who can spend the entire day on cnn.com, nytimes.com etc. and get much more than their local paper could offer in national news.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Wednesday August 12 2020, @08:48AM (1 child)
It depends on who's doing the tailoring and for what purposes. If Google or Amazon are tailoring ads for me, that's different from paying money to nytimes.com to get me hard copy information. I don't trust internet advertising giants with that - but the hard copy papers have a really good ethos about reporting content distinct and independent from editorial and advertorials.
Decades ago, I remember devouring three different newspapers a day every day. Even now there's nothing that beats paper. But I have to push myself to buy the occasional paper for old times sake. Yes, I get free news but I have to go find it. And, really, most of it's junk.
Say the 'real' paper provided an open source browser plugin -- some way I can let it know what I am really interested in. Then, the paper can syndicate content for me (say, as part of a buying group in combination with other papers) and print it specifically for me. It can use AI based summarization, use linkages to the online world using AR markers, and so on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @11:29AM
So you want to implement Fahrenheit 451? Summaries of summaries, "simplifying" things to black or white without shades of grey, banning nuances is exactly what the book is about.
Personalized news leads directly to hell without a way back. If you haven't been awake in last decade or so, maybe you would have noticed this as people isolate themselves in their personal thought bubbles and demonize everyone outside it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @11:19AM
Negative.
The personalized news is utter garbage and always has been. I subscribe to digital subscriptions but I would never bother with physical. I don't want to deal with more paper waste. There are better ways and digital news is far superior. I can read it on my phone or my tablet or my eInk tablet.. I can share it with my extended family and friends with a click... How do I do that with a physical newspaper? Send in a letter or re-type it? Make a collage?
The only personalizations I get from digital is I can re-order sections of the news according to my interest. I can put International News first and hide the junk Sports section ;) But that's it. I would never hide individual stories just because I may not like them. Hell, I even visit FoxNews.com on occasion to get an idea of what North Korean style propaganda looks like -- Fox is even worse than RT in that regard. And it's easier to read Fox than translating pravda.ru into english.