<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Very bad news for newspapers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/</link>
	<description>Where TV Meets Social Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:17:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: wtf?</title>
		<link>http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-1029188</link>
		<dc:creator>wtf?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lostremote.com/?p=5102#comment-1029188</guid>
		<description>There is no innovation at newspapers.

It&#039;s just re-purposing classified ads.
It&#039;s trying to do tv newscasts on their sites, which no one watches.
It&#039;s extending a new branch of content coverage to a niche area.

The new niches, like Mom&#039;s groups, they&#039;re too late on. Most mom&#039;s groups have already organized on one of 100s of options that are out there. 

The only way they can really grow is to innovate and develop new services. But that&#039;s a mindset that they (and TV sites) can&#039;t embrace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no innovation at newspapers.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just re-purposing classified ads.<br />
It&#8217;s trying to do tv newscasts on their sites, which no one watches.<br />
It&#8217;s extending a new branch of content coverage to a niche area.</p>
<p>The new niches, like Mom&#8217;s groups, they&#8217;re too late on. Most mom&#8217;s groups have already organized on one of 100s of options that are out there. </p>
<p>The only way they can really grow is to innovate and develop new services. But that&#8217;s a mindset that they (and TV sites) can&#8217;t embrace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lannie Byrd</title>
		<link>http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-1027938</link>
		<dc:creator>Lannie Byrd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lostremote.com/?p=5102#comment-1027938</guid>
		<description>A large part of most newspapers online revenue is tied to classified revenue and now that classified revenue is rapidly declining that portion of online revenue is also revenue declining. If you could find a study looking at pure online only revenue I bet the revenue growth would be much higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A large part of most newspapers online revenue is tied to classified revenue and now that classified revenue is rapidly declining that portion of online revenue is also revenue declining. If you could find a study looking at pure online only revenue I bet the revenue growth would be much higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: I Like Local!</title>
		<link>http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-1027264</link>
		<dc:creator>I Like Local!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:08:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lostremote.com/?p=5102#comment-1027264</guid>
		<description>Broadcast TV and cable TV also have a similar &quot;semi-monopoly&quot; on local distribution that&#039;s being turned upside down by the Internet and other competitive changes. Newspapers are simply the first to feel it.

When a newspaper sells 14% less advertising, profits don&#039;t necessarily drop 14% because they save one of their largest costs - paper &amp; ink. (Eventually that affects people costs, of course). But when a station sells 14% less, doesn&#039;t that loss drop straight to the bottom line?

I think most readers of this blog know that all media is being turned upside down by Internet innovation, and that all forms of local media have a common future online and a common competition against national players delivering targeted local advertising.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Broadcast TV and cable TV also have a similar &#8220;semi-monopoly&#8221; on local distribution that&#8217;s being turned upside down by the Internet and other competitive changes. Newspapers are simply the first to feel it.</p>
<p>When a newspaper sells 14% less advertising, profits don&#8217;t necessarily drop 14% because they save one of their largest costs &#8211; paper &amp; ink. (Eventually that affects people costs, of course). But when a station sells 14% less, doesn&#8217;t that loss drop straight to the bottom line?</p>
<p>I think most readers of this blog know that all media is being turned upside down by Internet innovation, and that all forms of local media have a common future online and a common competition against national players delivering targeted local advertising.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill G</title>
		<link>http://www.lostremote.com/2008/06/14/very-bad-news-for-newspapers/comment-page-1/#comment-1027141</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lostremote.com/?p=5102#comment-1027141</guid>
		<description>Online profits will never replace print profits for newspapers. Print profits were possible because of near monopoly control over distribution. Who else delivered such a big advertising vehicle to every household in a market?

Online newspapers compete on the same playing field as all other online sites. No monopoly distribution means no monopoly level profits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Online profits will never replace print profits for newspapers. Print profits were possible because of near monopoly control over distribution. Who else delivered such a big advertising vehicle to every household in a market?</p>
<p>Online newspapers compete on the same playing field as all other online sites. No monopoly distribution means no monopoly level profits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

