Is this the death toll for newspapers? Perhaps not. Sure, we've seen some old newspapers go by the wayside over the past year, but that doesn't mean the strong can't survive. The failing papers are, indeed, old companies. As renowned corporate life cycle expert Dr. Ichak Adizes says, old companies can act young, and new companies can act old. In this case, old companies are acting old. They need to be reborn to get back to their prime stage of the corporate life cycle. I think we have yet to see one paper do a great job at reinventing itself. Sure, a lot of them are finding many ways to cut costs as a stop-gap to extinction, but true change starts at the core.
Let's take a look at the business model of newspapers. They have revenues from subscriptions and advertising and expenses of staff, buildings, and the biggest of which ... their physical newspapers. The latter is their biggest challenge and their biggest opportunity. There are millions of dollars in hard costs associated with merely getting a piece of paper with print on it into your hands -- never mind the cost of creating the words on it. There's the pulp, the ink, the printers, the electricity, the delivery trucks, the drivers, the fuel, maintenance, insurance, substations, newsstands, paperboys (and girls), blue bags for home delivery, inserts, and the list goes on.
If their value proposition is rich, insightful journalism -- and I believe it is -- then why not dump everything that doesn't directly contribute to that? Paper printing is a commodity. Reporting on feature stories with the depth of the New York Times is an art. So instead of wasting money on the printing process, figure out ways to distribute the content by other means.
Which brings me to my point. Introducing ... the New York Times Kindle. I say dump (or phase out) the paper delivery of the news, and simply give home subscribers a New York Times-branded Kindle. For the price of an annual subscription ($551.20), it would be more cost effective to simply give a Kindle as part of the subscription. I'm sure the Times could get the $359 Kindles wholesale for less than $250. At that point the cost of (digital) distribution is miniscule, as long as Amazon corrects their ridiculous revenue split. If they keep the subscription price the same, after a few years, the profit margin would be astronomical (since the Times would only pay for the Kindle once). They could put in the agreement a minimum one-year subscription commitment. Multiple-year contracts would lower the price accordingly, like Verizon does with their FiOS contracts.
Move quickly, folks. The first one to implement this properly stays alive.
I guess Rupert Murdoch agrees with me, to some degree. And here's Jeff Jarvis's take on using the Kindle to read the Times and the Wall Street Journal.
RSS Feed
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 7:00PM 
A recent New York Times article talked about how the Internet and social networks are replacing the watercooler as the venue for talk about TV. Anyone who has been Tweeting during a big TV event like President Obama's state of the union address knows that to be true.;)
Matthew Snodgrass
