The decline in newspapers: MM case studies

The New Day

1. What was the New Day trying to achieve?

The New Day wanted to create diversification in the newspaper industry. This means that they wanted to fill a gap in the market with a new/unique type of newspaper which audiences haven't viewed before. They were trying to attract audiences by constructing a newspaper more relevant to modern lifestyles rather than political 'boring' stories that would turn this creative generation of people away from newspapers. Also, they weren't aiming to steal audiences from other newspapers because they were trying to be unique and the way they did this was by forming the newspaper for modern families.

2. List the key statistics on the first page: how many people buy newspapers in the UK? How has this declined in the last year?

• Newspapers have been in decline for over 2 years with a loss of 1 million readers
• Newspaper for new market
• First newspaper to cater for modern lifestyles 
• About 6 million people buy a newspaper in Britain every day
• Target audience: 35 - 55 age, for modern approach, opinions and comments but no political line

3. What audience were the New Day trying to attract?

The New Day newspaper were trying to attract both male and females so this would be a 50-50 split. Also, 35-55 year old people who were interested in modern lifestyles. In addition, in the article it says they were trying to speak to 'modern families in the language they use and with the positivity about what they feel in their lives'.

4. Why do you think the New Day failed so spectacularly? There are several possible reasons listed in the article but do develop your own opinion here as well.

From reading the beginning of the article alone, I felt the New Day newspaper was more like a magazine. When considering the features of it: the pictures, the 'modern lifestyles' I instantly thought of a magazine because newspaper are known for having articles with words and words trying to create moral panics and reinforcing ideologies. However, this 'newspaper' has taken a completely different approach to others and some could argue that it isn't even a newspaper.

The Guardian

1. List the key statistics on page 10: How many unique digital browsers used the Guardian website in June 2016? What are The Guardian's latest print sales figures? How does this compare to the Telegraph? In terms of finances, how much did the Guardian lose in 2015? 

• Sales of newspapers have been in steady decline since the explosive growth of the internet in the 1990s
• The Guardian's website is the third most read in the World with over 120 million monthly browsers 
• But struggling to maintain print audience
• Guardian has nearly 9 million average daily browsers, putting it a long way behind the market leader MailOnline with 14 million

2. What has been The Guardian's strategy for reversing this decline?

The Guardian had decided to set cutbacks of over 20%.They also are relying on investments to keep the newspapers alive - from Scott Trust.

3. What global event did The Guardian's digital coverage win awards for?

Pray for Paris. The terrorists attacks that had taken place in France were the reason that The Guardian won an award for digital coverage. It was significant because it gave people an understanding of the situation the city was in, the people involved both victims and perpetrators.

4.  In your opinion, will the global website strategy be enough to save The Guardian?

I don't believe this alone will save The Guardian because it is a long term strategy. This means that the benefits the institution would receive would come too late and their brand image would be under pressure at that point.







  

NDM: the future of journalism

1. Why does Clay Shirky argue that 'accountability journalism' is so important and what example does he give of this?

Clay Shirky argues that accountability journalism is important because of the impact it has on an audience. These journalists are those that will investigate a possible story and combine findings with other journalists to formulate a powerful article to challenge corrupt people with power. Its a classic example of iron core journalism where they are assigned to a possible development of a story and would have to begin investigating.

2.What does Shirky say about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers? Which websites does he mention as having replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers (e.g. jobs, personal ads etc.)?

Newspapers can't make as much profit through advertisement even if people were still buying newspapers. Newspaper were able to charge premium prices to businesses who wanted to advertise in their newspapers because there weren't many substitutes for advertisers to go to. This meant that newspapers could generate a healthy amount of revenue from businesses desperate to promote their products and services. IMB and AT&T.

3. Shirky talks about the 'unbundling of content'. This means people are reading newspapers in a different way. How does he suggest audiences are consuming news stories in the digital age?

People in the past would be only be able to read what institutions has printed on their newspapers so wouldn't have much of a choice on what they want to view. This may be seen as a disadvantage now because of the way digital media works but it meant that people's knowledge on a variety of topics would better as they have limited choices on what to read. Shirky gives an example of digital media being able to recommend stories or activities similar to the ones readers view so a website would allow a user to do another crossword once they finished the first.

4. Shirky also talks about the power of shareable media. How does he suggest the child abuse scandal with the Catholic Church may have been different if the internet had been widespread in 1992?

The case revealed the abuse in the Catholic Church and people were horrified by the situation but it eventually died down and people forgot about it. Shirky believes that the web wouldn't have had the reaction from the Geoghan case in 1992 but many good effects in limiting the Catholic Church's ability to continue doing this were a result of the public reuse of the documents in ways that were simply not possible in 1992 and had become not just available but trivial by 2000. By 2002 sharing of media content would allow people forward news stories again to whoever they want. This would allow most people to be informed on World affairs.

5. Why does Shirky argue against paywalls? 

He says the fact that audiences have the power to publish news themselves through citizen journalism or blogs would impact the introduction of a paywall. It would mean that more people will be content with only viewing some of a story especially if it is a preferred reading. Shirky believes that citizen journalism shouldn't be banned because it helps the World come to justice where these professional journalists wouldn't be able to help.

6. What is a 'social good'? In what way is journalism a 'social good'?

A social good in this context would be a service, which would be newspapers, that helps society by informing them on news. Journalism is a social good because it provides society with the news that is/could be relevant to them in articles which can be accessed through newspapers or online. This means that they want the people of countries to have knowledge on current affairs so they can feel connected and form opinions political, social, economical etc views.

7. Shirky says newspapers are in terminal decline. How does he suggest we can replace the important role in society newspapers play? What is the short-term danger to this solution that he describes?

Accountability journalism is the only way people will stay engaged with newspapers. This is because these journalists would carry out investigations which could expose people in power doing illegal actions. It provides people with good quality news that people really want to hear instead of short immediate news stories.

8. Look at the first question and answer regarding institutional power. Give us your own opinion: how important is it that major media brands such as the New York Times or the Guardian continue to stay in business and provide news?

Accountability journalism is needed for society as these journalists are no other and want to provide us with the most impacting news stories. They can expose corrupt people and systems like they have in past because of the thorough investigation they hold. This is where journalism is a social good and not ordinary journalism which reports pointless and irrelevant news at constant rates. I believe New York Times and The Guardian are significant institutions as they will develop the skills of accountability journalism and could potentially reinforce/promote it. If readers see a story from one of these institutions, they would be more likely to believe it. Especially because of the possible increase in the number of good quality stories being published.



 

NDM: Spotify UK revenues

Spotify UK revenues surge to almost £190m as mobile subscriptions take off

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/14/spotify-uk-revenues-surge-to-almost-190m-as-mobile-subscriptions-take-off 

The article shows how the music app, Spotify, is booming in its market. This is through the subscriptions people are signed up to which can be accessed on a variety of devices like smartphones, tablets, consoles etc. It is the World's biggest music streaming service at the vakue of £6.9bn and its revenue in the UK has risen by 18% last year (from £159m to £187.2m). This was fuelled by a 44% surge in subscription revenues from £119m to £171m. In addition, the company believes this increase is due to people using mobile phones to stream music rather than computers and 2015 was there best year. 

• 44% surge in subscriptions
• Subscription income accounts for over 90% of Spotify UK's total revenue
• Last year ad revenue fell from £11m to £10.8m
• 30 million songs on offer and charges £9.99 a month fir premium subscriptions

I believe Spotify is having a huge impact and making serious revenue because it is an app which allows people to play the music they like. It is a good replacement for CD's because a digital copy of a song means it can't get damaged, stolen, lost and has to be bought at a shop. Music from Spotfiy can instantly be used without many problems. 

NDM: Lack of journalism

I'm with you on the digital revolution, its the lack of journalism I can't face

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/11/im-with-you-on-the-digital-revolution-its-the-lack-of-journalism-i-cant-face 

This article discusses the significance free news has on the newspaper industry. A local newspaper in in the US state of New Hampshire had come to an end after 90 years. Citizens has to pay for the paper which wasn't an ideal strategy in this generation as people expect news to be relevant, instant and most of all free. Charlie Arlinghaus believes people don't get their news from Twitter and these people misunderstand their sources. He says 'someone he/she follows on Twitter or other social media posts links to stories they click on'.

•  Ways of obtaining news has changed 
• Charlie Arlinghaus doesn't believe social media is the main source of news
• He also believes people aren't sure on where the news they find really comes from 
• News stories aren't as in detail as they used to be

I believe the fact that some people make the mistake of saying they rely on social media for news would make it difficult to find a concrete observation if a test was carried out. For example, if someone was to hold a survey asking people where they obtain their news the findings may be inaccurate because of the simple mistake people are making. Therefore, society would believe that journalists aren't that useful because they are reliant of social media - not true - and the quality of news would then reduce as the good journalists may decide to change their occupation.  

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
1. I don't believe that audiences should pay for online news from the BBC to an extent. This is because the public already pay the TV licence and it would seem different/odd or might cause an upset if they have to pay an additional cost for content from the BBC. The BBC is an institution that is for the people so it would not be good for their reputation if they decided to charge for online content because the people will feel betrayed. They could possibly do it in the future once another institution decides to charge for online news but I don't believe they should be the first to try it. This is because paying for online content will be the norm in the future and both left and right wings would want to see the news on the BBC.

Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
2. In March 2013 The Times had a large number of people subscribed to its website. There is an obvious increase in the amount of people subscribing from 2010 to 2013 where in the beginning there weren't any subscriptions. It only began in 2011 and gradually rose. This would suggest that Rupert Murdoch's decision was beneficial as more people were willing to pay a fee to access The Times news online. However, this wasn't the case and the main problem probably arouse from audiences were deciding to buy from competitors like any other news institution that provides free online news. For example MailOnline makes a small profit from advertising funding which would leas to £45 million a years. Whereas The Times lost £27.8 million for the year and the institute had to try to keep costs down and made people redundant.

Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
3.

In any business, success depends on delivering one of three things to customers: lowest cost, differential quality, or a niche unavailable elsewhere. Newsprint is no exception, but the lowest cost product in the marketplace is set at zero. The Times isn't niche, that's the like of aviation monthly, so it has to deliver a product of sufficient quality for readers to be willing to pay the premium. Is it doing this? I would say not really, more work is needed, and it's hard to see how the quality can improve with costs being cut.

I agree with this comment as The Times is no different to its competitors like I have mentioned and so audiences would opt to visiting MailOnline because it is free. This is something The Times does not provide and Rupert Murdoch has put the institution in a dilemma as they have given the MailOnline a competitive advantage. Furthermore, it is evident that audiences don't want to pay premium prices for a product where the quality hasn't been improved.

I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers. The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.

I disagree with this comment partially because I believe the fact that newspaper articles are now online for anyone to read, audiences would change for the newspaper themselves. This means that overall the print industry may begin to cater for different audiences making the print platform very similar to the e-media one. Therefore, most newspapers will have similar news articles and perhaps share them in a more fair perspective showing both parties views in a story. Also, this could be the reason why businesses wouldn't be overly worried about who promotes their good or services because viewing numbers would be pretty similar.

Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
4. The Evening Standard increased the number of copies they were distributing. The figures changed from 700,000 copies a day closer to 900,000 which could suggest the 27% increase in circulation. When compared to other regions, the change is far more significant and is the only one which has increased whereas Manchester Evening News or Birmingham Mail decreased in circulation. The increase in the number of copies would probably infer that newspapers have changed something to their newspapers incentivising them to buy them.

Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
5. I don't believe newspapers will completely die out because it could play a part of society. Newspaper will probably become a niche product in the future where only a segment of sophisticated people will be targeted by news institutions. This would improve the image of newspapers as people may want to buy one to be associated with the possible stereotypes of reading newspapers instead of online news.

NDM story Index

1. NDM: is AI getting out of control
2. NDM: are mobile phones changing the way we shop
3. NDM: mobile giants 'THREE' to block online advertisement
4. NDM: BBC detect people using iPlayer without a licence 
5. NDM: BBC iPlayer to introduce a password 
6. NDM: BlackBerry coming to an end
7. NDM: taking the self out of selfies
8. NDM: we need to put down smartphones and cameras and enjoy the moment 
9. NDM: Netflix paying less than £400,000 in corporation tax
10. NDM: BBC stars under investigation

NDM: BBC stars under investigation

More than 100 BBC stars face tax investigations by the HRMC

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-presenters-hmrc-tax-investigation-self-employment-a7351341.html 

This article discusses the presenters who avoided paying tax from over a decade ago until now. From 2006 to 2013 some presenters incorrectly defined themselves as 'self employed'.  The BBC announced 85 of its star were moved onto staff contracts so there is no suggestion that any of them deliberately avoided paying tax or anything illegal.

• The corporation had paid more than 120 stars in excess of £150,000
• 131 staff were going to be given staff contracts 
• The HRMC investigation came tom light following the ruling on a tax tribunal

I believe we need to ensure we expose people trying to break the law especially in high end jobs like this. The BBC are suppose to be for the people but this has seriously contradicted this belief and the traditions of the institution. Also, we need highly skilled journalists to investigate and collaborate their findings with other journalists to make a solid report exposes the tax evaders. 

NDM: Netflix paying less than £400,000 in corporation tax

Netflix paid less than £400,000 in UK corporation tax last year

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/13/netflix-uk-corporation-tax 

This article portrays Netflix as a huge help in the UK economy. It has allowed audiences to stay entertained as they watch the latest series and films. Netflix revealed it made £36.5m revenue in the UK which suggests their authority in their market and that they may have got these outstanding numbers legitimately. The article also says there are no suggestions that Netflix that the business has broken the law because investigations were held. In the UK it is paying corporation taxes and VAT - spokesman for Netflix UK. Furthermore, the UK is believed to be the biggest market for Netflix outside of the US. 

• Total of £2.5m spent on wages salaries social security and other pension costs
• Each employee received an average of £193,000
• Only 13 people employed for Netflix in the UK

I believe the numbers for Netflix will continue to grow as they are able to upload the latest series that people (globally) are addicted to. Profits will rise even more if there is more of a crackdown on the number of illegal websites that are current which allow people to stream the same shows and movies for free. Therefore, I believe the main competitors for the business would be these websites.

NDM: Overuse of phone

We need to put down our cameras and smartphones - and enjoy the moment

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/even-as-digital-archivists-we-need-to-put-down-our-cameras-and-smartphones-and-just-enjoy-the-moment-a6827491.html

This article discusses the convenience the internet supplies it's audiences. It allows us to connect with friends and family in different countries and share views and values globally. However, people misuse its potential and use smartphones as our eyes and our brains. In a sense, it would capture the moment and then it would replay the moment but for anyone to experience.

• Google Glass is a hands free gadget that act as glasses which has a camera installed which allows the user to capture a particular moment and record it at the same time
• Record precious moments

I believe people forget to embrace special moments in their lives because they are too busy trying to record it to show it off through social media. This isn't a major problem because it doesn't really directly impact people's lives but it shows the influence digital media has on people and the question is, how much will people will be relying on digital media to live our lives in the future? 

NDM: Selfies

Taking the self out of selfies - most pictures not about vanity

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/08/taking-the-self-out-of-selfie-most-pictures-not-about-vanity-says-study 

This article discusses the purpose of 'selfie' in society and whether people take them to glamourise lifestyles. Studies say that they are more a form of vanity and 90% are taken without the intent for self promotion which would challenge some people's views of the people on social media because the typical stereotype would be that selfies are used to show off our lives. 

• Researchers randomly selected selfies over a 10 day period and only one in 10 were taken to communicate physical attractiveness
• 35% was the autobiography which documented people's lives 
• Broken down in many different categories

I believe the findings can relate back to people of older ages who take pictures for friends and family. However, for a younger audience I believe selfies are taken for vanity purposes as they want to show off their selves and lifestyles as a way of boasting. There are many factors that can influence people's finding and opinions on this topic like the social networking site, the demographic. 

Build The Wall Analysis

http://www.economist.com/node/7830218

The article discusses how newspapers are becoming a less favourable source of getting the news and how the internet has taken over. This is a major problem for journalist as they lose their jobs and the nations all over the World won't get good quality stories like the article that brought down President Nixon to defeat corruption on some level. Also, young people aren't really paying much attention to newspapers with people from 15 to 24 are spending 30% less time reading the newspaper once they started using the web. 

1. I do believe it is a 'cause for concern' because institutions aren't able to make profits through publishing news online leading to journalists getting less pay. This is because of the fact that news online is free and barely any of the news websites have a paywall. Therefore, the quality of news would reduce because journalist wouldn't be pleased with low pay or low skilled journalists being recruited to lower costs. However, we shouldn't panic as we may be able to receive news stories that are true and fully explained. For example, technology has given people the power to record any criminal behaviour so this can be sent to news institutions who have publish it online for everyone to see in any country. 

2. Most of the predictions are true and it may not have been too difficult to come up with those assumptions. From the Ofcom research it is evident that young people are becoming reliant on the internet to get news and rarely/don't use newspaper (59% internet vs 21% newspaper). This just shows the significance the internet has on most audiences as it was a tradition to read newspapers with breakfast in the morning and now the internet has stopped that. 

3. Journalism is at risk for sure. The fact that the internet is now where news is being read, profits aren't being made. This is because its free so the employees working on these stories won't get that much pay because the business is receiving low inflows. The Scott Trust Limited funds The Guardian.  

http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all

Section 1:

Audiences need to expect to pay a fee for online news eventually so news institutions are able to benefit (make profits) 

Section 2:

The implementation of subscriptions to gain access to news stories online  will be difficult due to the way institutions abused its use by giving people information for free

Section 3:

Emergence of the internet; deterioration of newspapers

Section 4:

Three possible ways of news institutions could build a paywall to help revive the industry 

Overall

David Simon's argument is about the impact new and digital media has influenced audience's perspective of traditional methods of obtaining news. The main method would be the newspaper which is decline and has been for years now because people are using more convenient ways of getting news which can be from television, radio or the internet. It is obvious that the internet is a dominant force overall in society and it the news industry specifically because its free and can be accessed whenever, wherever. This is why people have become so reliant on it.  Therefore, David Simon proposes news institutions should begin to charge people for using the news with a paywall. So this could be a subscription fee which lasts every month or year which would allow the business to receive profits but most importantly would make audiences revisit the website/app because they probably would only sign up with a maximum of two or three news institutions. He says The Baltimore Sun believed young readers would use the free site to find news they are interested in and buy a newspaper and settle down. However, this seriously backfired as these young people were content with reading news online and not revisiting a newspaper for a full story. This is just an example of where the downfall began for the newspaper industry as more and more people were finding the substitute for them.

AC Grayling's article discusses how the evolution of new and digital media is becoming a threat to people in power. One of those would be journalists who are able to publish news stories online for free on the institution's website which other ordinary people are able to share their reviews and become critics. This has had an impact positively and negatively on the news industry as a whole depending on where you stand because it means that journalists would have to be more truthful which means preferred readers may not be pleased with what they read. Also, bloggers work in the same way so would be able to criticise the journalists and possibly challenge ideologies and beliefs of others. The media doesn't have as much of an impact politically in the US compared to Britain and the other European countries. Despite the size, local newspapers are distributed regionally.

In my opinion the only way for newspapers to have any recognition would be for institutions to charge audiences a  fee for using online content. This means that journalists would only publish news stories online instead of on paper which is ideal at this time as everything evolves around the internet. Therefore, it would still be convenient for audiences to access news as its on their device and institutions would now be able to make profits from the implementation of the pay wall. On paper it seems like a win - win situation but in reality I believe this could be the beginning of the demise of the news for some people. This is because most people are too familiar with news online being free which means they may shy away from idea of paying for online news. Furthermore, we may become more reliant on bloggers and citizen journalism to get news which means we wouldn't know the difference between what is true or false.