Newspapers that ‘will survive the apocalypse’? Perhaps.
You might recall the report two weeks ago from 24/7 Wall St. that cited ten newspapers likely to fail or go internet-only.
The report has been widely ridiculed by newspaper people. Does anyone really expect the Minneapolis Star Tribune or the Boston Globe to go under?
Now, Nicholas Carlson of the Silicon Valley Insider sounded off Tuesday on ten newspapers he expects to “survive the apocalypse.”
The papers, in the order he cites:
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- Roanoke (Va.) Times
- Daytona Beach News-Journal
- Palm Beach Post
- Abilene (Texas) Reporter News
- San Angelo (Texas) Standard-Times
- Wichita Falls (Texas) Times Record News
- Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times
- Orlando Sentinel
Carlson writes:
Believe it or not, there are investors who still want to buy local newspapers.
He cites an investor friend of his who asked for anonymity. One of the reasons his pal likes newspapers — and any of you who have ever clashed with management will just love this one:
For most of their existence, newspapers were steady sources of revenue that required little management — “cash cows that you put your brother in charge of.”
We’ll pause while you clean up the coffee you just spit all over your keyboard.
The investor offers advice:
Underneath the mess, there are plenty of local newspapers that, after cutting newsroom bloat and R&D costs, would be plenty profitable. He says these local newspapers just need to stop “spending on trying to find their way out” and “instead run their current good business.”
On the other hand, this unknown investor thinks newspapers should have web sites run by skeleton crews who post wire material and that they should charge for local content.
The story is a must-read, of course. Make sure you leaf through the slideshow, where you’ll see commentary on the individual papers. Like this opinion of the Atlanta paper, which is launching a redesign soon:
The AJC, which loses about a million dollars a week, is a “fixer-upper,” our guy says. “It’s in complete disarray and it’s a horrible paper. It’s kind of a joke of a newspaper.” But that’s good news, because it means “there’s lots of room for improvement.”
Ouch! Harsh words for a paper edited by Editor & Publisher’s 2005 Editor of the Year.
—
UPDATE:
In the six or so hours since we posted this, the AJC announced it was eliminating 245 full- and part-time positions. It’s the third round of cuts for the paper.
Double-ouch.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think this list is worth any more than the Time one.
This “investor” isn’t anyone I’d want as an owner. He wants to cut “newsroom bloat and R&D costs.”
And: “What does our source think of newspapers on the Web? Not much. He says local papers should have a Web site run by two people that links to international and national news and keeps all local content behind a pay wall or off the Internet entirely.”
Yeah, that’s brilliant. As Steve Yelvington said: “Newspapers got where they are today by underinvesting in R&D, not overinvesting. The debt load didn’t come from building websites. Newspaper companies borrowed to buy more of the past, not to build a future.”