Tim Worstall

The Internet as Media Killer

I know we all like to make bold predictions about the way in which we bloggers, puny though we may be individually, are going to storm the ramparts of the corporate media, slash and burn our way into the halls of power and democratise the information flow (copyright Jeff Jarvis, Instapundit, varied pyjamahaddin etc) collectively. Might even happen, who knows, but here’s a little taster.

Remnant’s most recent accounts filed at Companies
House relate to the year to December 2004, when the business made a
pre-tax loss of £1.19m on sales of £5.7m.

The
business has been hit by the downturn in sales of adult magazines, with
traditional customers looking instead to the internet and online sites
instead.

It’s the traditional porn businesses that are taking the hit first. Shouldn’t be all that much of a surprise actually, as the industry has been a gung ho adopter of new technologies from photography itself to VHS. The question is, is news and commentary the same as porn? Something that does not benefit from an overall editorial control? Or do editorial teams provide value greater than their costs?

That I think is the one question which will determine how things work out. Sure, moving off paper and on screen, clearly that’s going to continue. But will brands and editorial teams do so? Or will the industry truly atomise?

In

3 responses

  1. Francis Avatar
    Francis

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645&q=the+internet+is+for+porn

    Reply
  2. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    The question is, is news and commentary the same as porn?
    Yes, if you are watching Svetlana Pesotskaya present it.

    Reply
  3. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “The question is, is news and commentary the same as porn? Something that does not benefit from an overall editorial control? Or do editorial teams provide value greater than their costs?”
    Tim, in the strictest sense your first question is rhetorical, and renders your second and third irrelevant.
    Of course they’re the same, if only because all survive due to the market for them.
    As for the atomisation of the market, unless I’m greatly mistaken that’s what I think Murdoch is planning for –
    “In the face of this revolution, however, we’ve been slow to react. We’ve sat by and watched while our newspapers have gradually lost circulation. We all know of great and expensive exceptions to this – but the technology is now moving much faster than in the past.
    Where four out of every five americans in 1964 read a paper every day, today, only half do. Among just younger readers, the numbers are even worse, as I’ve just shown.
    One writer, Philip Meyer, has even suggested in his book The Vanishing Newspaper that looking at today’s declining newspaper readership – and continuing that line, the last reader recycles the last printed paper in 2040 – April, 2040, to be exact. ”
    http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html
    The newspaper market is like any other – it has consolidated itself over time. Anyone remember the great editorial teams at the ‘Picture Post’ or any of the specifically morning or evening papers that have closed down over the course of the last 50 years?
    Of course not, because ultimately they didn’t deliver the content – it’s content that counts.
    That’s where an editorial team’s value comes from, regardless of the medium.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading