This is no surprise...who's next?

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/403793_piclosure17.html

Fortunately, they will try to keep the Post-Intelligencer afloat, albeit only on the Internet. Will the hopes that the Post-Intelligencer will continue to be a "strong and vital voice of this city for years to come" play out? Who knows....

Only 20-25 employees will stay out of 160. I think that might answer your question, Alfredo.

Ouch! Now, that is a sinking ship.

While I understand most people under 30 have little connection with newspapers, this is a big deal to me. I literally grew up reading the P-I, heck, it was my first employer! Yes, that was me out on the dark, rainy streets of North Seattle tossing the P-I toward doorsteps. A few customers were even waiting at the door for their paper! Those days are gone, or soon will be.

You have to wonder if the demise of manufacturing impacted newspapers. Guys who used to take the paper along with their lunch box and read it on breaks and at lunch. Now the work force seems to sit at a desk with a computer at their fingertips.

I used to supplement my income buy buing and selling cars. Got the P-I in the morning, made the calls and many times had a car by noon. took the drive to Olympia for a same day title, and had the car back up for sale in a few days.

When the state quit giving same day titles, it put a crimp in my activities, and when people started finding other venues to sell their cars, my "business" dried up.

Who here really enjoys reading the news on the net, waiting for page after page to load up. The internet discourage casual reading -- one has to think, is this article really worth the wait? NYT? Slow loading pages. Washington Post too. Boston Globe often locks up on first page. Huffington Post? Is it a link to an article with more than two paragraphs or not? Worth the wait? Pdxradio.com -- Someone posts a link but no summary? Worth my time? Blahhh! Deliver a paper to my door please!

Another place where the demise of the newspaper can be seen is at airports. There was a day, probably not more than a decade ago, where it seemed almost everyone was reading, whether it be a newspaper, magazine, or book. Today, that is a rarity. Instead most are on their laptop, or have an ipod or other device plugged in, or are on their blackberry. I don't pretend to have any clue what the social ramifications are of this, if any. Just a notable evolution.

Craigslist has killed newspapers. Who advertises anything in the clasifieds anymore? Classifieds provided huge revenue to newspapers for years. When I'm looking to buy something, I don't even bother with the Oregonian, even though I subscribe. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Plus, I pay about 50 cents a day on average, for the Oregonian to compile daily information, print it up, and have someone drive it to my doorstep. How can they make money off just subscriptions? It costs more than 50 cents to pay for compiling the info, printing it up, and delivering it to my house.

I'm surprised that Amazon has not offered the P-I as a subscription on Kindle yet.

How can they make money off just subscriptions?

They don't.

I'd bet the 50 cents barely, if even, covers the cost of delivery.

They make their money from advertising.

PW says: "Another place where the demise of the newspaper can be seen is at airports."

Hell, there's hardly anyone at the airports anymore! So sad to see the demise of another cultural icon. The investigative reporting by the P.I. was superb. The competitive rivalry between the Seattle Times and P.I. was so beneficial to readers and society as a whole.

Just as the contests between stations (KISN/KGW/KPAM or, KJR/KOL/KING) during golden listening times for radio.

Yes, even after the Joint Operating Agreement, there was indeed strong competition. The JOA eventually helped "do in" the P-I, along with the changes in technology. Another issue is probably how slowly the newspapers adapted to the internet, in some cases charging readers to view their sites. That didn't last long.

Not currently in Oregon, can someone clue me in on how the Oregonian is doing? Are they also in trouble, or healthy? And didn't PDX have competing dailies back in the 80's?

Not too good. The O offered a round of buyouts and had a bunch of layoffs. They did back off a proposal to cut 10 comic strips.

I believe the Oregon Journal ceased publication in 1978 but was owned commonly with the Oregonian for nearly 2 decades before that by Sam Newhouse.

I think the papers need to cultivate strong commentary and political / social / technical analysis and publish that in print first. This can be biased as hell, and presented in strong contrasts so people can size up an issue, learn from it, about it, and provide food for more thought, sharing and discussion.

The Internet has made simple acquisition of news immediate. Blogs have added commentary and analysis. Lack of bias or the struggle for pure objectivity has hobbled the print media in that it just can't compete because it cannot match latency, or depth of available online media. Despite this, the ability to entertain, deliver value, inspire, provoke and be a resource "of record" is still on the table.

Internet is not enduring. Things change, move, blend and disappear. Print doesn't. That does have value, and it does force one to COMMIT. The words so rendered are expensive words, not to be taken lightly.

Perhaps those of us who do print have forgotten that?

Craigs list and other venues have decimated the ads.

Finally, the comics and opinion pages have little relevance mostly because those are available online, and or readership has waned to the point where the perception of authority surrounding print media has taken a big hit.

To get that authority back, the answer is actually quite simple:

Publish that which is not easily obtained elsewhere and that which remains relevant for a few days to a week beyond the ever shorter popular news cycle.

Publish it online / digital for subscribers to give them options, but the general public doesn't get a peek until the print hits the street.

Each paper in each region could be publishing commentary and news and simple information that is very relevant to the community they serve. These things are still difficult to obtain on the Internet and where they are, they are spotty, AD laden and sometimes not available.

Cutting costs to reprint more and more syndicated content is a losers game. I want to open that paper and smile, be pissed off, compelled to write something in, learn what people in MY region think, and learn more about the dynamics of where I live.

That's worth a subscription. What is currently published isn't as those things are only a small portion of what is otherwise a Gutenberg copy of the Internet.

KSKD says, "Cutting costs to reprint more and more syndicated content is a losers game."

Yes, the same trap that radio has fallen in to. And I hope the Oregonian doesn't cut more. The pages are getting thin. The best architect critic ever, Randy Gragg is gone (he now edits the wonderful mag portlandspaces.net); media writer, Peter Carlin; the home and auto fix it people and probably others. I like the new bike chick and Powell's dude they've added to Sunday travel, however.

Over at the Portland Tribune, columnist Phil Stanford is out and they've reduced print to a weekly Thursday edition.

---

quote:

THE PC AND THE INTERNET

BY ART THIEL AND JULIA AKOURY THIEL

“The time has come,” the PC said,
“To talk of many things:
Of clicks – and links – and aggregates –
Of URL, which brings –
The daily news without a cost –
And whether pigs have wings.”

“But wait a bit,” the papers cried,
“Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!”
“No hurry!” said the Internet.
They thanked it much for that.

“A hyperlink,” the PC said,
“Is what we chiefly need:
Web sites and SEOs besides
Are very good indeed –
Now if you’re ready, papers dear,
We can begin to feed.”

“But not on us!” the papers cried,
Turning a little blue,
“After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!”
“To Tweet is fine,” the PC said,
“Do you admire Yahoo?

“It was kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!”
The Internet said nothing but
“Cut us another slice.
I wish you were not quite so deaf –
“I’ve had to ask you twice!”

“To play them such a trick.
After we’ve brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!”
The Internet said nothing but
“The newsprint’s spread too thick!”

“I weep for you,” the PC said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears it sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding a digital software bot
Before its streaming eyes.

“O papers,” said the Internet,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall you be on the porch again?”
But answer came there none –
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.

---

The Internet does cost. Everybody pays for it.

I think after reading this poem, the parallels between radio are very strong.

It's an ugly trap.

Economic realities have a part to play here too. Even if there were no Internet right now, publishers would be suffering, though I doubt they would be suffering to the degree they are right now.

The way I see it is the Internet brings the cost of information exchange down to a very low rate. It's nearly zero. And it permits many forms!

One to one, one to many, many to one, few to few, few to one, one to few, etc...

All of those are essentially two way conversations, if desired.

So then, the traditional media forms are forced to reconsider value.

Prior to the Internet, the paper itself had value. As a venue, it was compelling, because we didn't have alternatives, nor did we have many of the various forms, without expensive moving of people.

With that came a class system. Those elite people among us, who had some entitlement to leverage traditional media carried some authority that was implied, just because they were actually producing content for the media to distribute.

That's no longer true.

Anyone can publish, any one can comment, and anyone can communicate.

Being able to comment is particularly troublesome, simply because poor content now suffers peer review directly, and quickly, bypassing the usual editor, and staff gatekeepers.

We all know about a gaffe that afternoon! And we also all know who was great that afternoon!

There are lots of things that are relevant at least on a next day basis, if not next week basis. And where that's true, reading it sans computer, in the quiet, or on the train is still a great experience.

I fear the waiting was costly. At first, the drain was felt, but audience size and perception of value and relevance were high. That would have been easier to leverage.

Now it's harder, but still doable, I think. Maybe not.

Publishing physical works is a serious business. Why then isn't the content serious business?

The trap is the audience! If one were to publish print only, the risk is simply not being heard!

But then again, being heard widely is cheap.

Being elite is the wrong answer there, as others can and will compete successfully for the attention.

Print is a fine art. Writing is a fine art. People pay for fine art.

Maybe there are parallels there worth consideration. Many of us will pay for a play, or to see a dance, or music performed live. Bands make their money delivering an experience, not so much selling rendered versions of past works.

The experience of print then is part of where value remains. The implied authority that comes with words written worth the effort of printing has value too.

Just printing words does not have value. There are lots of words and lots of writers.

Maybe a Newspaper can expand the scope of what it is to be a Newspaper!

The things I enjoy reading off line are:

stories, critique, opinion, information that is framed as a story (like new energy news put into the context of where I live), history, satire, humor.

At the core, telling a story does have value still. And for all the availability present in the Internet, plain old stories that provoke are not always there, or are hard to find, or they are the kinds of things that people PRINT out, to read and consider later.

Tell me stories guys. Bring me the simple elements of human drama that help me feel a part of where I live, and put where I live into modern context.

Better, tell me those stories over the course of a few days. Set the hook, so I have a reason to come back. And that's another bit of value.

Each paper continues to exist after the next is published. And they don't change, like so many things on the Internet do.

Why then do I see the assumption that each paper is just atomic? There are few instances where content carries over from edition to edition. This is a mistake, IMHO.

If we have people following the stories, through the paper, people will be far more likely to continue using the paper.

That's it I guess. Just some thoughts on where value exists and why.

According to WW, The O is going to announce another round of layoffs and buyouts Monday.