On the one hand, he does not see a scenario where most daily newspapers can survive by squeezing a few dollars a month in the form of micropayment from readers. Having tried the user-pays-something route at Slate, he holds this to be a nonstarter.

But he does see the survivors—several of the major news organizations, plus a few “local papers that execute their transfer to the Web so brilliantly that they will earn a national readership” or some “Web site [that] might mutate into a real Web newspaper” – as actually providing more choice for most readers than existed in the past when there were thousands of print newspapers. Furthermore, “Competition is growing as well among Web sites that think there is money to be made performing the local paper’s local functions. One or two of these will turn out to be right.”

The result, observes Kinsley, is that the “American newspaper industry will be more competitive than it was when there were hundreds.” This is a song a few of us have been singing for years. Soon we might have a chorus.

But much of that is abstract for those not actually losing jobs. So here’s a blast that brings the harsh reality home: Out of Town News, the venerable international news outlet in the epicenter of Harvard Square, in the epicenter of one of the more literate nooks of the world, is closing.

Out of Town News used to be a bustling hub, situated just outside Harvard Yard, across from the Harvard Coop bookstore, at the literal crossroads of Massachusetts Ave, JFK Street and Brattle Street. It was at the entrance (or exit) to the Red Line of the subway system.

As the Boston Globe reported:

John Kenneth Galbraith bought a copy of Le Monde there every day. Julia Child searched for obscure Italian and German cooking magazines, and Robert Frost once stopped by - it actually was a snowy evening - to get directions to a reading.

I used to stop by often. Outside there were stacks of the Globe and Herald, The New York Times, New York Post and the Daily News, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Inside were shelves laden with newspapers from Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Denver, Athens, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo: Indeed, 200 cities. Its name was truth in advertising. There were also hundreds of magazine titles, inside and outside. Customers could stand there and browse—or even read—without fear of being asked to move along.

But times change. I haven’t bought anything from Out of Town News in maybe 10 years. And apparently many others haven’t. Galbraith and Child are gone—replaced by a new generation that can read today’s Le Monde online—instead of paying $4 for a two day old issue.

Out of Town News was started by Sheldon Cohen in 1955. Previously he hawked newspapers with his father at the subway station. I met Cohen in the early 1980s. At the time I was working at a policy research program at Harvard, trying to scope out the implications of the inevitable transition to digital for the information industry. For a guy with ink under his nails, he was precociously curious not only about what threats that might have for the print business but what opportunities it might hold for him.

Though later I would see him now and then in the Square, I don’t know for sure where those few discussions lead him. But with great timing—maybe luck, maybe insight—he sold his business to Hudson News in 1994—yes, the year that the Internet went commercial and the Netscape browser was released. Hudson News is the purveyor of print media and over priced gum at newsstands in many airports. According to the Globe, Cohen, now 77, wept when he was told that the kiosk would be closed.

Institutions need to sunset when they have outlived their usefulness. There is probably a majority of two or three generations of Harvard students who have walked through Harvard Square for four years and never stopped into Out of Town News or even thought much about it. I wonder what will be the media institutions that disappear for them to shed a tear over when they look back.

[Added March 30, 2009: Reports of the death of Out-of-Town News were a bit premature. See this brief update.]

Still, there is some news on the subject. I have written several times now about how the Journal has been devoting its front page to hot-off-the-press headlines that are essentially the same as what every other daily publishes: “Obama wins primary,” “Cyclone levels Sri Lanka.” This is a form of run-of-the-mill reporting to which the Journal brings little value added and, with earlier deadlines than most local dailies, perhaps less value.

But now comes some hard data—that’s what I like more than impressions—that does indeed confirm a substantial shift in the Journal’s editorial coverage since the change in ownership. The Project for Excellence in Journalism undertook a content analysis of the front page stories in the Journal for the four months before the December 12, 2007 date that News Corp. acquired control of Dow Jones, the parent of the WSJ and the three months following. Its finding was unambiguous:

In the first three months of Murdoch’s stewardship, the Journal’s front page has clearly shifted focus, de-emphasizing business coverage that was the franchise, while placing much more emphasis on domestic politics and devoting more attention to international issues.

The before and after change is most dramatic in several areas, as seen in PEJ’s chart I’ve cribbed here. Political news is up four fold, reflecting the intense coverage of the primaries that in the past election cycles would have received less space (if only because until recently the Journal rarely devoted more than a single front page column to any story). The full report at the Project’s Web site also compares the “new” Journal’s editorial mix with that of The New York Times, which Murdoch is keen compete with. There are still substantial differences, with the Journal devoting more of its front page to foreign topics, business and economics, less to politics.

Jack Shafer, writing at Slate’s Press Box last month, made note of the PEJ data, but chose to focus on his more generalized impression that the Journal may indeed be better under Murdoch because “it was swinging hard again in its traditional wheelhouse to produce great enterprise journalism.” He proceeds in identifying some examples, all, indeed quality reporting in which the Journal has long excelled.

This may be wishful thinking on Jack's part. I hope not. He has certainly identified some fine-- and traditional -- Journal pieces. But I'm speculating that perhaps they stand out because, as Jack notes, the primary season is over, and there had been no devastating earthquakes or cyclones for a few weeks, and the presidential campaign was in pre-convention simmer. Indeed, in the midst of these fine articles was the front page on June 4, as Obama wrapped up the Democrat's nomination. It struck me immediately as I picked up the Journal and The Boston Globe from the driveway that the Journal article was readily interchangeable with the Globe (and other dailies) articles. In my analysis, every day the Journal wastes newsprint with such headlines, photos and copy is a day lost to do the type of journalism Jack is rightly trumpeting.

I’ve mentioned before that I have great respect for Murdoch as a savvy businessman and as a risk taker who has made real contributions to the competitive landscape of the media.. My current critique is that the hot news approach is not a strategic direction that plays on the Journal’s long time strengths. To the contrary, it takes the paper on a path that daily newspapers should be trying to leave behind.

Ok. ‘Nuff said. I’ll leave this behind. If only Lou would move on from his obsession.

I’m referring to the decisive TKO win for Sony’s Blu-Ray high definition DVD format over Toshiba’s HD-DVD format. Warner Bros. Entertainment announced yesterday that starting in May it will release high def DVD’s only in Blu-Ray. Up to now it has been selling them in both versions. Thus, the all Blu-Ray line up is now The Walt Disney Co., Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, in addition to Warner. Blockbuster had stated publicly last June that it would henceforth only stock high definition DVD’s in Blu-Ray. That leaves only Paramount and Universal in the HD-DVD camp. Blu-Ray players have been outselling HD-DVD players. But the industry consensus was that most consumers were waiting for a standard to emerge before committing. That time might be now.

There is a certain irony here, in that in the last big format battle royale in the 1980s, between Sony’s Beta video cassette format and JVC’s VHS format, Toshiba was one of the few electronics companies that stayed with the Beta format for many years. Sony pioneered videocassettes with its ¾-inch industrial U-Matic and then revolutionized the consumer industry by using time shifting as the way to solve the chicken and egg dilemma for getting out prerecorded videos. But then it lost the marketing war with JVC and Matsushita. Most engineers agreed that Beta was the superior technology, but VHS was good enough. Sony tried again with 8mm cassettes, but that never got traction as a pre-recorded format.

Indeed, the lessons from the videocassette battle would have suggested that the HD-DVD format should emerge the winner. Though less technologically sophisticated, it is less expensive to manufacture. Beyond the earlier adopters, the mass market tends to favor low price over tech elegance (top example: Mac vs. PC). But that doesn’t seem to matter when it is the content providers who now have a say in the direction of the hardware victor

The apparent win by Sony is also a minor setback for Microsoft, which backed the HD—DVD format with an external player for its XBox. On the other hand, all 2.5 million Sony PlayStation 3 consoles are Blu-Ray ready.

There was great anticipation in the industry over Warner Entertainment’s impending announcement. It was courted heavily by both sides. But with stronger Blu-Ray disc sales in the U.S. and even a greater Blu-Ray preference globally, Warner threw its clout to Sony. Neither the manufacturers nor the studios were benefiting from the consumer uncertainty and, in the case of many studios and retailers, the cost of manufacturing and stocking multiple formats. Everyone was hoping for a winner—though Toshiba wanted its technology to be the one that won.

As word gets out to consumers, look for Blu-Ray players to drop in price as volume ramps up and more titles become available for purchase and rental.

(Photo from Gizmodo)

I first discussed this line of research in an entry a few years ago at my Who Owns the Media? Blog. More recently Anne and I have pursued this notions of media entrepreneurship and have made some encouraging findings about the vibrancy of bottom up media. This is, indeed, a phenomenon that was recognized in America's earlest days. In our most recent paper we note that

It was Frenchman Alexis de Toqueville who first observed in the 1830s the role of media entrepreneurship in the United States. In his second volume of Democracy in America, Toqueville identified the media entrepreneur (though not employing that term) as peculiar to American democracy in a passage titled, “On the Literature Industry.” He may well have been the first to recognize the inherent interdependencies among media, capitalism and democracy, noting that democracy creates a mass market for “literature” (Newspapers, books and a few magazines were then the only mass media) because citizens seek to be informed in order to participate in their democracy.

We characterize media entrepreneurship as “the creation and ownership of a small enterprise or organization whose activity adds at least one voice or innovation to the media marketplace. In her initial work, Anne found that in measuring the incidence of media entrepreneurship in comparison to other U.S. industries, media on the whole were at least as entrepreneurial, and often enjoyed greater rates of entrepreneurship.

In the most recent line of our research we undertook extensive interviews with 14 entrepreneurs who started media businesses. Though not any sort of statistical sample, we did strive to locate a diverse group of subjects. About half were involved in traditional media—newspapers, book publishing, cable and film—while the others were in some type of online media venture.

Although the entrepreneurs we interviewed have come to their media ventures by many different routes and are at different stages in life, there are some striking similarities in their motivations and attitudes toward entrepreneurship as well as their process for discovery and exploitation. In brief, they are hard pressed to recognize any particular barriers, regulatory, technological, structural or otherwise. And while they are working to make their ventures profitable, their first thought about being “successful” is often a reference to having an “impact” or having influence in some sphere.

From my point of view the most noteworthy insight was that this impact appears in two distinct forms. Some view running a media enterprise as more than just an entrepreneurial venture. The media’s power to influence, for this group, is a prime motivator for becoming an entrepreneur. Others exploited their media ideas for reasons similar to those of entrepreneurs in general. We refer to the former group as “missionaries” and the latter the “merchants” -- a potentially significant organizing concept for media entrepreneurship.

For example, typical of the of the missionaries are the comments of one interviewee who said that merely running a business, “holds absolutely no appeal to me…When you say that, I think of payroll taxes, balancing a cash register. When you say media, I think creative, influence, reach.” She added that a media business was appealing because “you can help people in the masses. There are very few other ways to do that."

A minority of those we spoke to we determined were “merchants.” In general, they responded that running a business, not necessarily a media business, was the motivating factor. Merchants talked about success and rewards in terms that could apply generically to any enterprise:

“It’s rewarding from a self fulfillment stand point that, hey, here’s a concept that I took….We brought it to the marketplace and made it successful. That’s, you know, part of it. There’s a real sense of fulfillment now the fact that we have people working for us. People depend on us for their livings. We're supporting other families, paying taxes and being good citizens. … There’s a satisfaction that comes from that."

The research supports the notion that prospects for new media players—and hence voices—is strong. Or at least there are many entrepreneurs who perceive great opportunity. Combined with our data that shows rapid growth in the number of media businesses overall, it bodes well for diversity of formats and sources of media-supplied content. Perhaps most encouraging is that these entrepreneurs barely recognize the existence of barriers to entry to the media business.

Serwer foresees “two other equally important seismic events”: the passing of the old guard at the family controlled media companies and the “dismantling of media giants.”

Both these factors could as easily fit into a discussion at my Who Owns the Media? blog. But they also are appropriate for this venue because they address the shape of the future media landscape.

While both of Serwer’s “events” are right on, neither is “seismic” nor events, in the sense that they are ongoing process, not a product of a single incident.

Sumner Redstone's Viacom and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation are as likely to continue under the next generation of ownership much as Newhouse has gone on after the death of its patriarch, S. I. Newhouse or Time Inc. (now Time Warner) after the age of Henry Luce. Sure, there may be differences. But they are not likely to be “seismic.” On the other hand, a new cadre of moguls may in the making,: Can you say Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Mark Zuckerberg?

Similarly, the disaggregation of “media giants” has been an ongoing phenomenon for many years, for reasons ranging from financial needs to the latest trends in strategy. As one example, there is the recent split between Viacom and CBS. Adam Thierer has kept a “diary” of other media company divestitures.

Nearly 30 years ago, in the first edition of my book Who Owns the Media?, I compiled a table of the dominant media companies, based on the breadth of their media holdings. At the time, the company with the largest holdings across the media industry was Times Mirror Co, best know as publisher of The Los Angeles Times. Since then it sold off its magazines (e.g., Popular Science, Outdoor Life) and its book publishing (e.g., Mathew Bender, New American Library) and eventually sold what remained to the Tribune Co., which itself is in the process of selling itself to a private investor and an employee investment fund.

Another on the other short list of companies that had major positions in more than one medium was the old CBS, which back in the early 1980s, besides its television stations and networks, owned a stable of magazines that included Woman’s Day and Road & Track, and book publisher imprints including Holt Rinehart & Winston. All of that was sold off in pieces before CBS, as part of a revised strategy to focus on its “core” television business, undid the “media conglomerate” strategy that was in vogue in the 1970s and sold itself to Viacom.

On the other hand, Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer said Tuesday that he expects 25% of the company’s revenue within 10 years to be generated by advertising-supported products and services. Sounds very media-ish.

So, yes, the media industry will look different in 20 years, just as it has evolved over the past 20 or 30 years. But the key world is “evolve.” This is not seismic. The digital revolution may be an appropriate use of “revolution” in the context of the centuries dominated by print. But we’ve seen digital coming for at least 25 years. The mass market Internet goes back 13 years. And newspapers and broadcast stations are still profitable. There has been and still is time to adjust.

Lots of long term rumbling, but no earthquakes, Andy.

First is the continued downward spiral of advertising in daily newspapers. Nothing new here. But the rate of decline may be accelerating. For the fourth quarter of 2006, total ad revenue at newspapers-- including online revenue-- was down 3.7% from the same period a year earlier.

This past February, individual newspapers and groups reported some dramatic year over year declines: USA Today down 14% while parent Gannett was down 3.8% overall. The Tribune Co. and McClatchy both reported 5% losses. The New York Times Co. was down 6% and The Wall Street Journal off by 10%. Even publishers of smaller city papers, where the losses have been more modest in the past, were afflicted. Media General, which publishes papers in Tampa, Richmond, VA and Winston-Salem, NC, was down almost 6%.

And this is in a period where advertising expenditures in general were reasonably robust. One can't attribute this to a recession. The New York Times reports that publishers “blamed the declines largely on the continuing shift of classified advertisers from print to online, especially to mostly free sites like Craig’s List. In some cases, particularly in Florida and California, they traced the weaknesses to volatile real estate markets.”

Meanwhile, one bright spot for newspapers, online advertising, is showing some signs of slowing as well. Online ad revenue, though up 31.5% for newspapers last year to $2.7 billion, still accounted for only 5.4% of newspaper ad expenditures. Most threatening is that newspapers are facing growing competition from other Web sites aimed at their local market strongholds. Google and Yahoo have already been offering key word search-related advertising that can be geared to local advertisers. But now other local media—TV and radio stations, city magazines—are beefing up their Web sites to help shore up their own advertising woes. Radio stations, faced with declining time spent listening are putting video on their Web sites, along with streaming audio of their programming, to attract larger audiences and selling local advertising.

Perhaps most ominously for all the local media is that the largest share of advertising as well as the fastest growing, are “pure play” sites. That is, they are not related to existing legacy media but exist solely on the Web. This might include Craig’s List as well as local news sites such as Buffalo Rising and Dallas’ Pegasus News. As seen in this table from Borrell Associates, about 38% of local online adverting goes to these nontraditional sites—and their share is rising.

There is a small note of good news. A Nielsen/NetRatings study (commissioned by the newspaper industry trade association), found that online visitors to newspapers Web site rose by 5.3% in the first quarter of this year. According to this source, that is the steepest quarterly rise since the numbers were first tracked in 2004. This translates to 59 million visitors to newspaper Web sites.

And another report that might lift the spirits of newspaper publishers came from the Poynter Institute last month. A study tracked the eye movement of 600 test subjects as they read whatever they wanted from their regular newspaper and their newspaper’s Web sites. The most relevant finding for here is that a much larger percentage of story text was read online than in print.

On average, online readers read 77% of what they chose to read, while broadsheet readers read an average of 62% and tabloid readers read an average of 57%.

There might be a pony in there somewhere.

With more than 36 million unique monthly visitors to Yahoo’s news site alone, the alliance gives McClatchy far more exposure than it gets through its newspaper (aggregate circulation about 3 million, readership maybe two times. Web site visits likely include some overlap with print readership).

This is just one of a string of recently announced deals between newspaper publishing companies and Yahoo and rival Google. It is the start of a realization that the core of the news business in the future for these folks is more news gathering and less news distribution.

It is part of an action plan (I would hope) among some legacy media companies more than others that it can no longer be business as usual in the digitally connected universe. Ken Goldstein, a analyst who concentrates on Canadian media, has a few illustrations that nicely captures how massive this change is, looking in this case at television.

Figure 1

Figure 1, which I have only slightly modified from his, shows the quite simple value chain c. 1975: Content providers—primarily Hollywood studios – created movies and television programming. They were distributed via commercial broadcasters to consumers, with nascent cable providers also starting to retransmit those signals. Advertisers contracted with the broadcasters to deliver their messages to the consumer. Straightforward and limited to handful of players.

Fast forward to 2007. Figure 2 shows a far richer, more complex, more fragmented landscape. The number of players has proliferated exponentially. Indeed, considering peer-to-peer and aggregators such as YouTube that provide easy access to materials from content creators that range from the highly professionals to the rank duffer, the close circle of content providers is blown apart. And this is possible because the gate keeping function of the broadcasters and then cable providers has been undermined by satellite and the Internet, not to mention offline conduits such as DVDs.

Figure 2

Similar charting of the newspaper or radio value chains would yield parallel changes, blowing up of the tight community of players and limited choices for advertisers and consumers. In its place is greater choice for these constituencies. But with this choice comes greater effort, for advertisers to find the best outlets for their target markets and for consumers to know what they want and where to find it.

This change also provides a surfeit of opportunity for those enterprises willing to make the effort and accept some failures in experimenting with evolving and unproven business models. I don’t know how the McClatchy/Yahoo deal will pay off for the newspaper publisher. But it is certainly moving its mindset in the right direction.

XM and Sirius
March 1, 2007; Page B7

The thought that a merger between XM and Sirius could create a monopoly is absurd ("Making Radio Waves," Review & Outlook, Feb. 21). They would offer only one of many content options for consumers. It's a moot point anyway. By the time the merger is completed, satellite radio will have won the battle with radio but lost the war. When I subscribed to XM three years ago, I immediately quit listening to traditional radio. Satellite radio is simply a superior choice. However, now that my 927 favorite songs reside on my iPod, I have little need for radio of any kind. Why scan the dial in hopes of finding a song that I like when my iPod contains only songs that I like?

Scott Stolz
Tarpon Springs, Fla.

Although there were profound implications for business strategy, we had our greatest impact in the telecoms sector, where the regulatory ramifications of the change from analog to digital were more immediate and the stakes higher. (Anyone here recall Computer Inquiry II? III?) The just mentioned e-Yellow Pages proved just how high the stakes were for classified. Can you say Monster? Craig’s List?

For the media folks, they were probably right in largely ignoring our message, at least in the early 1980s. A few newspaper companies, such as Knight Ridder with Viewtron, made a stab at exploring digital products. But all the technology and economic pieces were not yet in place. Timing may not be everything, but it is important.

Skipping ahead 20 years in one swoop and we can now see the shape of real convergence. Web sites of enterprises that heretofore have been called newspaper publishers are offering the same mix of text, video and audio as are being offered by sites from television stations, cable networks and, yes, radio broadcasters.

Look at USAToday and CNN. The Virginia-Pilot, a newspaper based in Norfolk, VA, has incorporated its HamptonRoads.TV into its site, with its own production capabilities, not just replaying clips from AP video feeds.

And now we even have radio, that last bastion of single sensory output, ramping up for video on its Web sites. “The nation’s commercial radio stations have seen the future, and it is in, of all things, video,” observed an article in yesterday’s New York Times.

“Audiences in Los Angeles, for example, will be able to tune in today to Power 106 for an annual Valentine’s Day event called “Trash Your Ex,” in which jilted listeners are invited to put mementos from past loves in a giant wood chipper — and to let it whir while the disc jockey, Big Boy, urges them on. And for the first time, audiences everywhere will be able to watch streamed video of the event, to be held in a parking lot in Pasadena, on the Web site power106.com.”

Radio, as with other legacy media formats, has had to deal with an erosion of its audience. Of course. The time you have spent reading this entry—multiplied by the millions of people clicking on millions of other Web sites and podcasts—takes time that otherwise may have been spent using traditional media.

To be sure, radio has perhaps suffered less than newspapers and television broadcasting because radio has long been a second medium, used in the background while we do other things. Still, with mp3 players and the like offering some of the same benefits as radio, the amount of time spent with radio has fallen by 14% over the past 10 years (see accompanying chart).

So here is where convergence really starts to get serious: With digital TV sets proliferating, more of what is available on that screen will come via the internet (or perhaps more generically over some TCP/IP-based transmission).Wireless devices, whether 3G or Wi-Fi or Wi-Max—the technologies are not important but the certainty of widely available wireless broadband is—we will increasingly have news and information as well an entertainment and transaction provided in a highly competitive landscape.

The winners and losers are far from being determined. But what is inevitable will be, first, greater fragmentation of the audience over a wide variety of players aiming for sometimes mass and sometimes niche markets. We will see advertisers faced with a greater dispersion of their budgets. And eventually we will have to see a new wave of consolidation to help create some economic rationalization of this scenario. It will continue to put stresses on the regulatory regime, which has been slow to respond to the implications of the changing technologies and media strategies.

I hope to be around to have another retrospective look in 20 years.

• Time Warner’s Time Inc unit announced that it was cutting 150 positions, half from editorial at Time, People, Fortune, etc. This on the heals of a reduction of 600, mostly business side, last year.
• The digital version of Sports Illustrated accounted for 13 percent of profits in 2006 and is projected to rise to 18 percent this year.
• The number of people reading Internet blogs on the top 10 U.S. newspaper sites more than tripled in December 2006 from the previous December—from 1.2 million viewers to 3.8 million.
• On the other hand, viewership of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts was down by 1.1 million in November from 2005.
• Based on the first six months of 2006, Internet advertising revenue should total about $16 billion for the year, or about 30% greater than 2005. This is roughly 10 times the rate of growth of advertising overall and would make Internet advertising greater than magazine advertising (although some of the Internet expenditures go to the Web sites of magazines).
• A private equity group has agreed to buy the Minneapolis Star & Tribune from McClatchy for less than half of what it paid for the newspaper nine years ago. And presumably McClatchy was happy to be walking away with what it got.

1 ABC News
2 New York Times
3 Reuters
4 Washington Post
5 Times Online, UK
6 Forbes
7 Guardian Unlimited, UK
8 Voice of America
9 Christian Science Monitor
10 International Herald Tribune
11 Bloomberg
12 CNN

What can be read into this analysis? By the numbers:

• Six of the top 12 are associated with newspapers.
• Two have roots as wholesalers—news services. Only since the development of the Internet have they reached out to an end-user audience.
• Two are related to commercial television news operations, one from a magazine, one is a government agency.
• Three are non-U.S. based, with all three being in the U.K. (IHT is nominally located in Paris, but most of its content is from its New York Times parent)
• One, The Christian Science Monitor, by its inclusion on this list, might seem to have far more prominence in the online world than in the print world, where its circulation is about 70,000.
• They are all—no surprise—English language.

Does this ranking tell us anything about online and traditional media institutions? It is important to understand what this is not: a ranking of the most used news sites, though as might be expected there is some overlap. According to Nielsen data, ABC News.com is the fourth largest pure news site, behind the New York Times (discounting higher ranked sites that are essentially news portals, like Yahoo or aggregated listings such as all Gannett sites taken together, except USA Today). And of the others only CNN makes the Nielsen list.

NewsKnife’s analysis essentially awards the greatest weight to the news sites based on the frequency and prevalence of its links. You can see more of the methodology here.

That said, the NewsKnife rankings do reflect the prominence that these sites have in Google’s aggregation of the news and no doubt drives far more traffic to these sites than they would have without Google News. It suggests that relatively small circulation publications can get high visibility, while being a major player in general in other venues (e.g., CBS News, Associated Press) is not an automatic ticket to top ranked accessibility.

° What will be the future role of news agents and newsstands? Although they don't play a sizeable role in distribution of American, Canadian, German, and Japanese newspaper (only about seven percent of circulation in those countries), local newsstands and news agent play a most significant role in most other major countries' newspaper ecology. Plus they play significant roles in magazine distribution in every country.

In most of the world's countries, newspapers and their hired wholesalers distributed daily copies to the news agents and newsstands, who then distribute them to you. when you subscribe to home delivery of a daily newspaper, you make your subscription with your neighborhood newsstand or news agent (not directly with the newspaper as is the situation here in the U.S.) The news agents or newsstand has the relationships with the subscribers; the newspapers themselves don't know who subscribes, just that the wholesalers reports how many copies were sold to the retail newsstand and news agents.

Some digerati simply expect newsstands and news agents to go out of business if newspapers and magazines someday switch entirely to online publication. But that would create a major disruption in countries such as the United Kingdom, where 47 percent of the daily newspapers' gross revenues came from newsstands and news agents. Must the newspapers forge direct subscription relationships with consumers? Will physical newsstands and kiosks cease to exist? (Do remember that browsing a physical newsstands if much easily than one online.) Or will they be replaced by physical versions of some sort of electronic kiosk?

° More immediately on that topic, we've today been helping a U.S. investment client ascertain what the U.K. Office of Fair Trade's provisional decision-making about news agent competition means for major newspaper and magazine distribution wholesalers such as W.H.Smith, Menzies, or Dawson News.

In the U.K. wholesalers grant news agents and newsstands exclusive rights to distribute certain titles in specific geographical areas (a rural town, a one block radius in London, etc.). Since 2004, the OFT has been investigating whether such exclusivity is anti-competitive and disserves consumers. It last year issued a provisional finding that these exclusivities weren't anti-competitive with newspapers but were with magazines. Several months ago, it however changed its findings to say the exclusivities are anti-competitive for newspapers, too. It's still investigating, and will issue new findings in the spring.

° Would the regional press be better served using virtual newsrooms? We know several reporters at various regional newspapers who've gotten into trouble by not being at their newsroom desks five days and 40-hours per week. They've defended themselves by pointing out that news doesn't occur in newsrooms. That's all too true. The successful newsroom was an empty one 25 years ago because all its reporters who expending shoe leather, but too many corporations now consider an emply desk or cubicle in a newsroom to mean that the reporter isn't doing her job.

Today's technologies allow reporters to work from anywhere. So, why should they be physically anchored to their newsroom for most of the work day? Newsrooms are a great place for reporters and editors to have story conferences, but with instant messaging, SMS, person-to-person webcasting and voicecasting, mobile devices, etc., the reporter should be able to work from his car, home, local coffee shop, or the news scene. Why chain them to an Atex or SII mainframe six or eight hours each day?

Many journalism schools teach how to report using multimedia and new technologies, but none teach editors how to use those technologies to replace the newsroom itself. It's time that was done.

° Open archives. How much are newspapers really making by charging for online access to stories that might be more than a week old? Do they earn more that way than the online advertising revenues from opening up their entire archives to consumers and search engines? Are publishers being foolishly doctrinaire by charging for archives?

° American business publications in print took a revenue bath last month. The Society of American Business Editors and Writers' Talking Biz News reports Magazine Publishers Association data showing large drops in advertising pages and revenues.

Though Barron's, The Economist and Inc magazines showed increases in ad revenue,
Forbes 4.2 percent, Smart Money 5.4 percent, Money 6.6 percent, em>Business 2.0 fell 7.4, BusinessWeek 8.9 percent, Kiplinger 19 percent, and Fortune 28.1 percent (after that magazine had already declined 12 percent in August). It's odd that business magazines would have less advertising once the summer vacation season ended.

° The Financial Times and the weekly New York Sun published 'think' articles about the future of the American newspaper industry, and both make the same point about profit margin versus product development.

The FT story contrasts the Los Angeles Times and the St. Petersburg Times. The former is owned by the publicly-traded Tribune Company and the latter owned by a not-for-profit trust. The FT's reporter suggests that Wall Street demanding too much profit ("trying to push profit margins beyond 20 per cent") comes at the expense of keeping newspapers viable.

The Sun's story looks at The Los Angeles Times and the now defunct Knight Ridder Inc., and is a bit more blunt:

It seems its [Knight Ridder] 32 daily newspapers had been able to record "only" a 20% return on investment in recent years.

Cut back on the quality of a newspaper in order to show an impressive short-term return for the market's sake, and the slide toward disaster has begun. Readers will notice and begin drifting away, and advertisers will soon follow. It won't be long before the vultures are circling.

° Last but not least, the online news pioneer Milverton Wallace, who'd organized the European NetMedia conference during the new-media industry's first decade, looks at the long-term changes underway, in an essay he's written for the Club of Amsterdam.

The Wall Street Journal last Monday tallied the best and worst performing stocks (subscription required). Among the 50 poorest performers were six media companies, four with major holdings in the fading newspaper segment, but also two major broadcasters, including the largest owner of radio stations. Among the best performing media companies were younger and thus more volatile entrants.

Worst and Best Performers, Total Return, Past 3 Years
Worst	% change	Best	% change
# 4 New York Times Co.	-15.4	# 5 Sirius Satellite Radio	118.8
# 8 Tribune Co	-11.5	#9 XM Satellite Radio	116.5
#14 CBS	-6.6	#39 CNET Networks	75.7
#25 Gannett	-4.2	#49 Yahoo	68.6
#27 Dow Jones	-4.0
# 33 Clear Channel Communications	-2.9
Source: The Wall Street Journal, Feb 27, 2006, R1. Compiled by L.E.K. Consulting LLC.

Last year Adam Thierer and Dan English published a paper,  “Testing ‘Media Monopoly’ Claims: A Look at What Markets Say” that I wrote about in September. In brief, Thierer and English found that Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Clear Channel, and Comcast lost a combined 52 percent of their value (in terms of market capitalization) over the previous five years. Time Warner in recent months was the target of an attempt by major stockholder Carl Icahn to break the company into four pieces to “unlock value.” Time Warner’s capitalization was lower in 2005 than in 2001. Knight-Ridder has been forced to put itself up for bid.

Although one might criticize Wall Street as being obsessed with last quarter's and the next quarter's earnings, over the longer haul the financial markets tell a story of substance. Out of 76 industry sectors (from home construction to computer hardware), the publishing industry was 72nd over the three year period, broadcasting and entertainment was 63rd. This is a statement about expectations of the future—the one year and five year future.

Folks who put our money (most of the big investments come from our retirement and mutual funds) out for investment are saying that there is so much uncertainty in the media arena that even when companies show reasonable profit they are not attractive bets for the future. On the other hand, some companies that have little or no profit may be worth the uncertainty and risk because their upside is substantial.

One clue to the media future may be found in following the money. But look at where it’s not going as well as where it is.