Monday, April 17, 2006

Free Newspapers: Another nail in the coffin?

For students (and faculty) attending SUNY Geneseo it might seem like newspapers are free--after all, piles of copies of the New York Times, USA Today and the Democrat and Chronicle are distributed around campus gratis every day, for anyone to pick up (all part of increasingly desperate efforts by newspaper companies to encourage young people to pick up the daily newspaper reading habit). But the fortunate situation here shouldn't disguise the fact that, for most people, newspapers cost money, and have to be paid for ... or at least that's the way it's always been, until now.

More and more, we're seeing the emergence of a whole new class of free daily newspapers that are undercutting the traditional, paid-for newspapers. Of course there are the daily or weekly shoppers that come in the mail, but these are little more than ad sheets. But recent years have seen the rise of a whole new class of free newspapers: the big city "Metro"-type papers (started in Europe) that are increasingly available to bus and train commuters in major metropolitan areas. These free commuter papers -- some started by serious media groups such as the Washington Post Co. and the Tribune Group -- have already spread to big cities like New York, Washington, Boston, and Chicago.

But increasingly, traditional paid-for newspapers are feeling competition in their last real stronghold: the stoops and porches of suburban America, where the delivery of the morning newspaper is still a ritual and a strong tradition. Traditional newspapers are starting to see competition from free daily papers. Bright, breezy free tabloids have already been introduced in San Francisco and Washington. Now it's Baltimore's turn, as the Wall Street Journal (paid registration required) reports. Earlier this month, the Baltimore Examiner, America's newest daily newspaper, hit 250,000 homes in the Baltimore area--instantly allowing it to boast a bigger circulation than the 169-year-old Baltimore Sun.

Of course, as the Benton Comm Policy listserv notes (drawing on the WSJ piece), "no one is sure what that quarter-million papers will really mean to advertisers because they will be delivered unsolicited and at no charge." But at a time when traditional newspapers are under intense pressure, this new development can only cause them further pain.

The Baltimore Sun itself, in reporting on its new competitor, drew attention to the Examiner's possible right-of-center tendencies and its lack of depth. The paper is owned by "conservative billionaire" Philip F. Anschutz and his Denver-based Clarity Media Group Inc. Apparently, a promotional issue delivered to Baltimore doorsteps noted the paper "will include columns by Morton Kondracke, a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel, and former longtime Sun columnist Jules Witcover." That same promo also boasted of the new paper's "devotion to brevity: It said the paper would be housed 'in a convenient package you can read in less than 20 minutes.'" Pointing to the Examiner's sister paper, the Washington Examiner, most of that "paper's local and sports stories were written by staff reporters, but its foreign, national and business pages were filled almost entirely with Associated Press dispatches."

Asks Thomas Kunkel, dean of the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism, in the WSJ: "Can a mature subscription-based daily paper -- even one as respected as the [Baltimore] Sun -- be vulnerable to an upstart that's giving news away? . . . It really and truly is a very interesting and open question."

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If i were the legitimate, "pay for a subscription" newspapers, i wouldn't be to worried about being surpassed by a "free" newspaper. While i am only speculating, i believe these free newspapers would have very weak business models and revenue generating capabilities. Advertising would likely be their only revenue source, and since they cannot guarantee a minimum readership circulation, they are likely to attract only the most desperate (or foolish) advertisers. Since they are given out for free, there is simply no way to tell if free newspapers would garner readership, and advertisers will realize this point. The only other source of funding for these newspapers is through subsidies (either large corporations or the government). This source of revenue destroys the credibility of the newspaper for providing unbiased news (if there is such a thing). I give readers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to identifying any subsidized and overtly biased newspapers.

-Nicholas Cintineo

4/20/2006 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nicholas I think you are forgetting a few key points while you speculate.
A papers "news hole" is based primarily on its advertising (More ads more paper More space to print news.) Newspaper subscriptions do not generate as much revenue as one may think and the numbers are dwindling as i am typing this response.
You are also forgetting People love free stuff. Especially when they are a captive audience on a bus/train/subway/etc Free commuter papers... yeah I'd advertise in one in a heart beat. You cannot underestimate the Need to Alleviate boredom which leads me to my next point
The American population (generally speaking) is easily bored and Loves fluff. Look at some of the most popular publications out there (magazine or paper)...US Weekly, People,The Daily News, Newsday and even the D&C All print media which Are filled with advertising and Puff Pieces the population Pays for. Is it so hard to believe we wouldnt pick this stuff up and read it in a free a version ?!
An example: Dan's paper (a Hamptons based Tabloid newspaper on the East End of Long Island Eats up with a Spoon Every week and Big Businesses pay big money to advertise in it rather than advertising the local major Subscription Newsday)
And Finally regardless of How much journalistic integrity a paper proclaims to have. They are all biased in one direction or another. I firmly believe anything you read/see in any form of media should be taken from where it comes.. Even the NY Times has a more liberal slant to it. I agree the american people can identify a bias in news however I do not think they necessarily care

4/21/2006 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the free newspapers here on the Geneseo Campus, I feel as though, in some respects, providing the free papers is quite a waste of the college's money. I don't know where exactly the money comes from (possibly a part of our tuition dollars), but I rarely see anyone around me pick up a newspaper and I know very FEW people who read the paper on a daily basis. I think that college students get their news off of podcasts or the internet. I used to read the news paper daily, but now that I spend such a bulk of time on the paper writing papers and such, it just seems easier to simply look on a website to get news...that way you can watch downloaded clips, etc. Although traditional paid-for newspapers are a part of our culture in the United States, in some ways, it seems that free newspapers have their place, too. Should we really have to pay a significant amount for a newspaper subscription to find out what's going on in the world around us? And furthermore, why would we? We can retrieve the news in so many different ways, it seems silly to pay the top dollar amount asked by newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. On the other hand, there is nothing quite like a cup of coffee and a newspaper first thing in the morning...
-Mary Kate Scanlon

4/23/2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The main question for free newspapers is that isn't news free in the first place? We pay for the means to recieve that news, and I think that actually does the consumer a service. The quality of these free papers has yet to be seen, and it's almost a waste to distribute these papers especially with the interest in news so low these days (or actually just reading it in a newspaper.) There are so many more outlets for the news other than papers, and that needs to be considered when distributing these free papers. Subscribing to a paper, paying for its services, is a guarantee that it is being read by an individual, and no money, paper or time is being wasted to distribute it. There is the other issue of the quality of these free papers being distributed. The difference between putting out issues of the New York Times here at Geneseo as opposed to the 250,000 copies sent out in Baltimore is that the New York Times is paid for by someone, and it is a reputable paper. I don't know who did the market research and decided putting out a free paper that has a high possibility of being used as cage lining, but there was a risk pursuing this avenue. I believe in paying for your paper, because that means you've found someone that actually wants to read it, not dispose of it as soon as they can.

Jennifer Wrobel

4/24/2006 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fully support the free newspapers at colleges like SUNY Geneseo. It is very true that many young people are oblivious to what's going on in the world outside of their private sphere. This practice can provide students with the habit of reading and watching the news more that they may keep up after graduation.

Amanda Olszowy
comn 160

4/26/2006 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda is right that the practice of providing students with papers can keep them informed about their world, which we desperatel need in the upcoming generations of politics. The trouble is that it may help, but how much? I feel a handful of students might read our free newspapers, a slightly larger handful will stop to read the headlines on the front cover, and a large majority don't bother. In a cost/benefit analysis campus newpapers may not be worthwhile to our conservative economists who stand to benefit from the unknowledgable.

About free newspapers throughout the US...
Well, the only thing i have to add is some food for thought:
I don't think we can effectively analyse how many people the advertisements would reach since they are free and on commuter transportation. People will through out or hand out free stuff, which could be a very effective means of distribution. It's not like only one person is going to pick up a copy of a free periodical in a doctor's office right?

-Jude Kane
Comn 160

4/30/2006 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have to say I agree with what one person said in that American readers are easily bored or un entertained. When the newspaper distributors are looking for a paper to put together they need to examine what people want to read about. Like many other communication mediums in the past 10 years or so, newspapers need to not only inform but keep people's attention. It's up to these 169 year old papers like the Baltimore Sun to get with the times and not act like they are too 'respected' or traditional to change up the way they do things. In the age of the internet people will not sit down and read a boring mass of black and white newsprint when they can go on their computer and catch up on the same stuff just as easily. Especially for free.

Tyson Terry

5/02/2006 1:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home