Originally Posted by lamewing
Newspapers and magazines make their profits on advertisements. NO advertisements = NO profits = NO newspaper or magazine. HOW is this hard for people to understand. The same people who complain about their information being collected for advertisements then scratch their heads and complain when the newspaper or magazine goes under.
People are idiots.
No, people complain when 80% of the content of a publication is ads. The content of the average publication is so heavily weighted to ads because it supports a ludicrous upside-down business model. The business model is broken and that simple fact is demonstrated by the numbers as reported by the Audit Bureau of Circulation: newspaper circulation declines run 5-10% per year for the last two decades, and the Newspaper Association of America reports declines in ad revenue for the last two decades running from 5-29%. Lose of ad revenue involves the impacts of media conglomerate building at the start of this mess, where media owners took on large amounts of debt to consolidate newspaper, magazine, radio and television properties. The result was to increase ads to increase ad revenue, resulting in less actual content.
On the heels of that was the development of the "internet as source"which provided a wider access to news and entertainment sources with more timely content, Craigslist and eBay eroded classified ad revenues, and other sources undermined content even further.
Thus began the downward spiral of traditional media - ad rates had to be lowered and circulation declined due to increased ads and less content-value compared to internet sources. Increased ads lessen content further and the internet pulled ad dollars and interest in Craigslist and eBay (and the increasing number of other "classified" websites)pulled classified ad dollars away from print. The burden of debt, and the declining value of the media being held by the conglomerates, together with ineffectual strategies to migrate content (and ad revenue) to the internet forced the closing of many newspapers, or consolidation of newspaper operations under a smaller central staff. In the meantime costs to print kept rising - gas costs kept going up, union labor kept demanding higher pay - cost of benefits increased, profitability can't be maintained under such pressures.
Let's remember also that these same publishers were NOT just selling demographics to their ad suppliers, they were selling subscriber information to the highest bidders as well
- a very lucrative source for mailer operations, for example. Apple has decided to require certain limitations which run counter to the situation that many publishers find themselves in - their operational overhead (including accrued debt through consolidation) exceeds their ability to accept Apple's charges and restrictions. No publisher HAS to be in the App Store, they may want to be to leverage Apple's popularity to drive higher deadership and more ad revenue, but they are subject to Apple's requirements. If they cannot adjust their operational costs in order to adjust to the demands of a market window (like a surcharge to be on display in a big-box retailer), then they have no reason to be there. But Apple, Amazon or anyone else do not owe it to the publisher to modify their requirements if there is no effective value to do so.
And because they are conglomerates, they aren't nimble enough to make the kind of shift needed to absorb lower internet ad revenue initially in order ot build a strong internet delivery model. Which means they stagger around like dying elephants failing under their own weight until they either fail entirely or are reduced to a small core of contributors (ala Huffington Post for example) and embrace the internet. They are once again forced to be efficient with ad revenues, and their success depends on them making this transtion effectively - most won't.