Online News Is Still Young

The first modern print newspaper was published in 1605. Relation aller Fürnemmen und gedenckwürdigen Historien was a German-language paper produced by Johann Carolus during era of the Holy Roman Empire. This means print news as we know it in the present day has had over four centuries to evolve and experiment. Over this period of time, nations were born, empires crumbled and most importantly newspapers learned a thing or two about writing, reporting and acquiring a readership in a print format. 

By comparison digital news has only truly existed over the past 2.5 decades. That is a minuscule 6.1 percent of the total lifespan of modern print journalism. To illustrate the vast difference in levels of acquired experience between print and digital journalism, it would be fair to say that digital journalism is a toddler while print journalism is an elderly grandparent.

How then is it possible to say, as Professor Chyi does in "Ramen Noodle Theory of Online News is Still Food For Though" that "after 20 years of experimentation, the performance of their online ventures has fallen short of expectations... that most local newspapers' Web edition is still outperformed by the print edition in terms of usage, advertising revenue and willingness to pay?" Saying this is as if to say the the toddler is not as good as the grandparent at algebra. While true, it says nothing of the potential capabilities or worth of the toddler. 
Therefore I find it difficult to agree with Professor Chyi's assessment of digital news as an inferior good (a good that decreases in demand as consumer's income increases). 

Instead I posit that digital news still has a lot of potential growth. Digital news has not yet overcome its learning curve. While there are clearly problems with the digital news like the lack of tactile experience during the digital news consumption process or a the market's propensity to view free news as low-quality news, strides are being made to improve the overall quality of the digital news  which will firmly cement its place as a normal good.  For instance in an article in Digiday, author Colin Nagy discusses how media outlets like the New York Times are focusing on how far more digital distribution methods play a part in spreading quality stories online. Additionally according to the Pew Research Center's State of the Media 2015, "39 of the top 50 digital news websites have more traffic to their sites and associated applications coming from mobile devices than from desktop computers," which suggests digital news is becoming a far more tactile experience. Overall I think digital news has time for experimentation- because in the scheme of things it is a very young service. 

Is the sky really falling on print newspapers?

I’ve wanted to be a writer for as long as I can remember. Throughout high school, the thought of getting to know someone or something intimately enough to write about them/it made me decide to pursue a degree in journalism. While the shift from the printing press to the Internet has been prevalent for as long as I can remember, my early dreams of becoming a published writer didn’t exist online. In fact, what seemed most prestigious to me was being published in print. While my goal has already become a reality, studies are starting to show that I may be counting down the dwindling days to seeing my name on the front byline of a newspaper page.

The reason being for this is because various studies – including one done by Medium – shows that print circulation has been on the decline for quite some time. The website took statistics from the top circulated newspapers from across the country and the results were startling. It shows that only two print newspapers (the Wall Street Journal and New York Times) sell more than a half million copies per average weekday, only six that sell a quarter of a million copies and around 22 that sell more than 100,000. Compare that to 2013, where the numbers for each newspaper listed was sometimes even double what is was last year in 2015. While the numbers are somewhat disappointing, I can’t say that I’m surprised. With so many digital innovations, it seems rational that newspapers would make the shift as well. Another reason for the decline in print is that there’s a very small cost associated with doing so. If everyone is making the switch to smartphones and tablets, wouldn’t newspapers benefit more from going digital? Or are they losing profit and readership from doing so?

An opinion columnist from Prince George Citizen backs up the claims made by Medium and asks the audience a question – How does one save print journalism? While this author doesn’t have many facts to back up his claim, he says the main reason we should fight to keep print alive is because of the want for written records. “In an age where governments delete emails and people take down tweets or posts that garner too much negative attention, there is something right and just about keeping a permanent written record,” he writes. Furthermore, he’s respected print for so long because it gave him a space to write and actually be a journalist. While that may be true, one might argue that one is given the same space in the digital sphere and that you don’t have to be in print to be classified as a journalist.

While both articles made good, yet similar, points, they both seem pretty pessimistic about the future of print journalism. Unfortunately, the numbers back them up. For me, I can say that while I may not like what’s happening with print, as an up-and-coming journalist in the digital age, I can tell this is something I’ll just have to accept. 

Food for Thought

Both readings focused on the numbers of print media vs. digital media and it's obvious that print media is still outdoing online news, and will continue to do so for awhile. Iris's theory that online goods are inferior goods (like ramen noodles) is probably true - right now. Newspapers (on average) still haven't figured out how to really make news successful online.

After our discussion in class on Tuesday, and the data shown, I began to think about print vs. digital media a little more deeply. Like Bryna I also enjoy reading book, actual physical books and I also don't share that same affinity for print newspapers. So why is it? If I'm being honest I'd rather read news online because generally I'm only reading one story at a time.
There is no denying that print only is not sustainable for Newspaper companies, but they don't need to rush themselves into the purely digital age, that much is clear. Picking up the morning newspaper and reading it is a habit for many people, it's a part of their daily routine. Just as watching the news when you get ready in the morning is a habit. But as people's tastes change, online news has to find a way to work it's way into people's morning routine, otherwise news sites are going to be in trouble. This journalist came to the same conclusion.

The American Press Institute released this study in 2015 about how millennials are consuming news, and how much news they are consuming. This goes a bit into the information surplus, but for the most part their findings are encouraging. People from the age of 18-35 are encountering news at least once a day, and often more than that. The study also says that for 13 out of 24 news topics surveyed - Facebook was the No. 1 jumping off point and the 2nd for 7 others. According to this study millennials search for news when they want more information on a topic. And even though online news might not be competing with print - this study says that 82% of millennials report consuming their news from online sources. Keeping up on what's going on around the world ranks 3rd in what they do online. All that to say there is clearly a want for news. Newspapers just have to figure out a way to make online work for them, and contrary to what they might think, they've got the time to do it.

Old Things Are Best

I'm a traditionalist. I don't like change. So I'm going to be honest when I say that this post, and my opinions on this topic, are really pretty biased. I don't want to see print newspapers disappear. Just like I don't want to see every bookstore shut down, movie theatres go out of business, and restaurant have to install a wifi router to keep business up and running. Despite the fact the Professor Chyi mentions that most people find her theory "hard to swallow," I agree with her, and I hope she is right. Here's a little story, albeit a little cheesy, to show you why. My grandpa spent his entire career in the publishing business. His last 20 years were spend as a consultant to Outdoor Life and Sports Afield magazines. He loved the outdoors and he loved to write. His job was perfect for him. My grandpa developed lung cancer in the late 1980s. He was only in his mid 60s. It was during this time that he wrote this piece. It was never published during his lifetime, but when he passed away from the cancer in 1993, Guns and Ammo magazine published it in his memory. A man in his final years of life reflected back on his time and came to one conclusion: old things are best.

"Old things are better than new things. They may not perform better, but they are nicer to own; they are friends. My Randall knife, while not my oldest, is a prized possession, not for any monetary value that it might have-but because we’ve done a lot of fun things together in the past 30 years.

My oldest knife was “requisitioned” from the arms chest of the Tacloban Shore Patrol during WWII. Six months ago, I gave it a new handle of leather rings. It, too, provides memories.

I have two pairs of old leather bird boots, which date back to when they cost $18.00 to $20.00; big money then. Believe it or not, I still have fond memories of my first pair which were bought before the war, and carried me into the fifties. They were prime examples of what a cobbler could do if he really cared about old and good boots. They were from L.L. Bean, as is one of my current pairs.

Old wool deer pants are better than new ones only because you can look at the various repairs and bring back memories.

Old deer hunting friends are better than new ones. They took the test of time and passed. Old deer hunters are better than young ones. They know more and their hearts and legs make them move more slowly.

Old rifles are better than new ones, and, in the area, I must personalize the statement, for I have only had my current “old” rifle for one season. It’s a custom-stocked .308 built on a Sako action. The bluing has worn off due to it having been in and out of countless scabbards.

It previously belonged to Warren Page marksman, hunter, and Field & Stream writer. I’d like to think that it was one of his favorites because of its worn condition. It weights under seven pounds, with sling and scope. I can’t tell you all the places it has been, or the stalks or excitement it has witnessed.

However, I can tell you that on my back it has gone to four different states and accounted for three whitetail bucks. In time it will earn a place alongside my Randall as a source of retrospective good memories.

Old hats are better than new hats and everybody knows that. I brought mine home from the Pacific. Its previous owner, an Australian, gave it to me after punching me in the nose. I had, in company with an MP, walked into a bar and immediately found myself on the floor-for no particular reason other than being an American with a Shore Patrol band on my arm.

My old Aussie hat bears the inscription “Denham & Horgrove Ltd. Atherstone, 1943″ on the band. The felt is about 1/4” thick, and the brim keeps the rain off my glasses and the snow from going down my neck. Other than being practical and irreplaceable, it’s a best hat because it is old.

I have lot’s of good old things; old compasses, shirts, and two mended pairs of my father’s long red underwear. All these things give me warmth and comfort.

Someday you will get older and you, too, will be a best thing." - James R. Pierce Sr. 

So what does this have to do with Professor Chyi and the Ramen Noodle Theory? Well really, everything. I love the frankness of my grandpa's writing. He doesn't try to sugar coat that his old things "may not perform better" than the new things. This is just like the paper products we use today in comparison to the technology and online platforms they are up against. When it comes to performance, surely the paper products don't stand a chance. But as my grandpa talks about, it's not always about just the performance. Based on Professor Chyi's research, people obviously agree because they continue to use hard copies of newspapers in lieu of the much more advanced online options. So in summary, I think both the interview with Professor Chyi and my grandpa's article give us all something to think about. What matters to us when it really comes down to it? I hope we come to the same conclusion my grandpa did, I know I have! 

Steak and Swiss Watches? Potato, PotAHto?

You know that feeling, like you aren't quite full even though you just ate a ton of food? That, "I just ate a whole box of Easy Mac and my stomach is bloated... but I could eat more" feeling? That, "I just ate straight carbs and no nutrients" feeling?  That, "Well, at least it only cost me 5 bucks" feeling? Isn't it so much more satisfying when pay day comes, you get to go out to eat, and you bite into a juicy steak with potatoes and broccoli?

Iris Chyi poses this very question, the Ramen Noodles theory, in regards to online news. The theory, in a nutshell (or pasta shell, if you will) goes like this: Online news is an inferior good, meaning that people consume less when income increases because they would rather consume normal goods, like steak. This theory, in my opinion, seems accurate enough.  Take my life as Exhibit A: My personal preference is to hold a newspaper or flip the pages of a magazine or turn on my television and watch the news.  Buuuuut, what do I normally end up doing because I am running late, because it is convenient, because there is an abundance of it, because I am a broke college student? I end up consuming free online information. 

Chyi cites a Harris poll that shows us the 55% of U.S. Internet users believe traditional media as we know it will not exist in 10 years, even though 67% still prefer getting news from legacy media. This misconception, the "print newspapers are dying" narrative, is so prevalent that even the journalists believe it.  But, as the Ramen Noodles Theory goes, the more money/time we have to spend, the more we will indulge in steak...ahem, I mean, tradition media. 

I ran across an article that asked an interesting question: How are traditional, analog watchmakers surviving the digital age?

You know the kind: Rolex, Tag Heuer. Expensive, handmade pieces of craftsmanship that are passed down for generations and become “heirlooms.” They last. But with a phone glued to your hand and time displayed on every screen all around us…what is the point of dropping a grand on a watch?  Steak.  That’s why.  This product, as the author puts it, “tells the time but is timeless.”

 

"These days, nobody needs a watch to know the time. Time is all around us, displayed on every computer, phone and microwave oven. The Swiss watchmakers realize this. They market their mechanical watches as not only accurate but also deeply symbolic. For those willing to spend $30,000, a traditional Swiss watch marks its owner as a man or woman who appreciates quality, artistry and ingenuity,” Clive Thompson for the New York Times writes.

When the Apple watch came out, the industry froze in panic.  Will this mark the end of the industry? they quickly recovered. The author writes “Much of the allure, of course, was Apple’s famously elegant design...the watch is a smaller version of an iPhone, essentially.” The article points out the limitations of the Apple Watch: one being, you have to charge it every night.  Another, the digi-layout suggests that at some point, people don’t appreciate it as much as an expensive piece of wrist candy that lasts longer.  So Swiss watchmakers countered with the opposite: a smartwatch that retains the elegance of a handmade, analog product.

Here’s how it functions: "Instead, it would combine the functions of a Fitbit, a device that tracks physical activity (or more), with a traditional Swiss timepiece, a $1,200 entry-level Frédérique Constant watch.” And “In pursuing an analog design, they hit upon an intriguing concept. Using the phone app, the owner can set an activity goal, like 8,000 steps for a day. Then the watch displays how close you are to meeting it, using the hand on a small, secondary dial: At 2,000 steps, for example, the hand would point to 3 o’clock, signifying 25 percent. Eventually, the dial could quantify all sorts of data: How full is your inbox? How close is your friend to arriving at the restaurant?... This approach is superior to the blunt accuracy of a screen. A watch hand is “glanceable,” as he puts it, because it’s only semi-accurate; we peek at an analog wall clock to get a general sense of the time of day, not a precise one.”

But people, like with the paper vs. online debate, assume that digital watches will take over the world and analog will die.  Swiss watchmakers disagree- they anticipate a spike in profits.  As Apple-Watch-Wearers get more used to checking the time on their wrist, they will learn to appreciate the rich, full, steak-like feeling of wearing a mechanical, analog watch (especially one with additional digi-smart-features.)

Can the same be said for online news? Can well done online news spike a newfound interest in news and current events in Generation Y and Millennials, causing them to appreciate traditional formats?  Something to think about.

It Ain't Over Til It's Over

In a society where we believe that the internet is the answer to all things, it was interesting to read the study’s evaluation of that belief. According to their research, the internet isn’t the end-all-be-all of news, for several reasons:

1. people are less satisfied with the experience of reading something online
2. people think that free news (most internet news) is bad/low quality news
3. people like tangible things

The first point rings true with me. I hate when ads pop up while I’m reading something online. I’m not super tech-savvy, so it usually takes a bit for me to figure out how to make it go away or turn the sound off of the video or whatever needs to be done so that I can finish reading the article. With print newspapers, the ads aren’t blocking the news content, and if you want to ignore them completely, you can. I also hate reading on screens in general, never mind the distracting ‘extras’.

The second point is a little less applicable to me. My primary news source is TheSkimm, which as most of you know is a free, daily news email service. I have never questioned the validity of what I read in those emails (that may say more about me than about the news) and I don’t think that it is any less trustworthy because it’s free. I think this point is relevant to a generation that is used to working hard for things because they don’t come free. Because of that, they question the reliability of something that you can just take without giving something in return -- they believe that there must be some tradeoff waiting if they consume free news from the internet. On the other hand, our generation grew up with the internet and we are accustomed to searching for and finding just about anything that we are looking for for free. It’s part of our routine, and as such, it doesn’t phase us (at least it doesn’t phase me) to consume free news. 

The final point is hard to disagree with, and for me, it goes beyond newspapers. I mean, I printed out this thirty page study because it is easier for me to digest what I am reading if it is in a print format. I don’t own a Kindle or an iPad because I want to read actual, physical books. I like the substance. It makes whatever I am experiencing -- news, narrative, etc -- more real. An article in the Scientific American said that modern screens “fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss.” I’m definitely one of those people. 

I haven’t lost sight of the joy of partaking of print media -- books, magazines, and occasionally a newspaper. I don’t want to see it disappear, run out of town by the big, bad internet. But the truth is, the internet isn’t really to blame. In her article about the Ramen Noodle Theory, Professor Chyi describes the frenzy that newspapers have worked themselves into over the proclamation that print news media is dying. The truth is, the publications are killing themselves. The continual cutting of resources for print editions to expand an online presence that is not exponentially beneficial will be the downfall of newspapers, not the internet itself. 

It’s high time that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down for a second. All it takes is a little understanding of what people really want and need. There is a market for print format news and it is likely that it will be there for years to come. It’s tradition, it’s science, and it’s personal -- it fulfills peoples’ needs in a way that digital news can’t. In the famous words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over til it’s over.” 

We'll be back

When I was growing up, my youth pastor would ask for book reports and if they were up to par he would give us a dollar coin. So, being so drawn to the rare dollar coin (its actually not that rare), I've read probably over 100 different books between 1st grade to 5th grade. While I was writing countless book reports on what each story was about and what its symbolized, I recognized how much I enjoyed reading and falling mindlessly into a paper book. Now as I college student, I can honestly say I prefer reading print. Even for my classes, if I could print every article and read it, I would. Sadly, ink is expensive and too many trees would be wasted. But my reasoning is that I would rather be able to highlight and write my thoughts on the paper as I read. Right now, my sister is 8 years old. She is growing up in a world where iphones have always been a thing and instant access to technology and web media never ceased to exist. Just now, I called my sister and asked her if she would rather read from an actually book or a kindle. She told me a kindle because she wouldn't have to put away her books in her bookshelf.

Regarding Professor Chyi's research and theory, I do agree with her in the fact that print newspaper will probably not go away, at least for another couple of decades. So even for me and my generation, the millennials, may prefer print over a web document because we remember the age before the instant web access. But what happens when my sister grows up? Will she buy books for her children or kindles? And then what about her kids' kids? and then their kids? I think it is completely possible the print media/newspaper could one day disappear.

BUT.

Let's talk about content for a minute. I think that what people find amusing and important have degraded in a sense. Flash back to the 1940s, World War II has happened and commercial television has just emerged. Newspapers back then were huge in the sense of knowing what is going on in the world, politically and economically. There were tons of crucial things going on in the US and the US people wanted to know about it. They wanted to know how the the NATO alliance was being formed, what the Holocaust was about etc. because as a country we were being directly impacted and being transformed into a different nation. I'm not saying that things going on in the world right now aren't as important. But the priorities that people put on what's important has definetly changed. If you put an article of the elections and then a BuzzFeed article on print or online. In my opinion, majority of people are probably more drawn to the trending cat video or Adele's performance at the Grammy article, than the 411 on current elections.

Another Point I wanted to bring up in convenience. That's a huge factor that should be accounted for in print and online media. People are not going to go out of their way to look up news, so I think that is a big reason why print newspapers could still be so prevalent. There is something about picking something up right in front of you or being given something to read, than going out of your way to find something interesting online. 

I feel like its too early to predict if print newspaper will become distinct. There are still generations living who have become accustomed to print media, and habits are hard to break. So my conclusion is lets wait a couple decades and try this again later. 

Assisted (Print) Suicide

One of my favorite places to go is the library. I love wandering up and down the aisles of books and daydreaming about what story lies within those pages. Every summer, I looked forward to participating in the summer reading contests. I entered college as an English major with the idea to one day earn a Master's Degree in Library Science. Forbes agrees that there is a necessity for public libraries, even in this digital age. Although I eventually switched my major to Public Relations (shout out to Junker), books continually impact my life in a positive way.

While I do have a huge affinity for books, I have never actively read print newspapers. My parents used to subscribe to the Dallas Morning News, but ended their subscription when the value stopped seeming worthy. Instead of the full Dallas Morning News edition, my parents opted to switch to the Briefing, which is a free publication that highlights the important news in the community, nation and the world.

I would consider my parents a part of the late majority when it comes to adopting new technology. They have not yet switched from the Briefing to a digital subscription, but that development may be coming sooner than they realize. A few years ago, the Dallas Morning News released a digital strategy that would charge consumers for content. This was a risky move at the time, but in today's society this development makes sense. To me, it seems to matter less how the content is presented (whether print or digital) but more so that it is quality journalism. Print providers must make the transition to a digital product in a seamless way and assure consumers reporting will not be sacrificed simply because it is not presented in a tangible print format.

We're not the only ones to wonder if newspapers are dying. In 2009, senators from across the nation met to discuss the shift from print to digital media. While there are certainly cases to be made for both sides of the argument, I think that the shift from print to digital media is inescapable. Publications across the world are following the same model as the Dallas Morning News and are charging for premium digital content. By encouraging consumers to buy into this transition, print publications are essentially digging their own grave.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It... On Your Phone

When doing a Google search for the question "are print newspapers dying," the first article that pops up is titled "Lets Get Over the Whole 'Newspapers are Dying' Thing." It's an article from The Guardian and it's all about the fact that newspapers are still producing content and people are still reading that content and where you read it (either on your phone or on a physical paper) doesn't matter. It does take into account that newspapers are having to be innovators - something we've talked a lot about in class. It also gave an interesting fact; apparently Gen Y consumes 38% more news (from newspapers) than Gen X.
The author or this article makes 5 major points about newspapers innovation:

1. Don't try to be an aggregator - offer informed, and unique perspectives not found elsewhere
2. Do your homework - study online behavior A LOT
3. Be smart with your add ons - don't just add stuff for the hell of it 
4. Move away from advertising money and towards content based money (i.e. subscriptions) 
5. Importance of life events - membership gets you more than just a newspaper, it gets you access

Personally I really enjoy this way of thinking. It's a nice middle ground between social media sites are taking over the world and newspapers are dying. But let's talk about print media - an article from USA Today gives the numbers for 2015 from a comprehensive Pew study. The basic premise? Print media is declining, and expensive... but a little over half of readers still prefer a print version! So it's not all bad news. If I'm being honest though, I think print media is on its way out, but it won't be for awhile. Print media is just way more expensive than digital media and as the people who prefer print become decrease the price of that print media is going to increase. And as that price goes up, the people willing to pay that price will go down (aka the law of demand) - this cycle will continue until print media continues no more. Media is changing, it has before and it will again - and I don't really think it's a bad thing. Newspapers will continue to produce important content, we will just probably be consuming that content in different ways. 

When evaluating online news, consider broccoli

In an interview titled “Ramen Noodles Theory of Online News is Still Food for Thought,” Professor Chyi highlights the flawed logic of modern-day news reporters by putting the issue into terms that everyone can understand: food.

She explains online news as an “inferior good,” and defines this term as something that people consume less when income goes up. In the flipped perspective, an inferior good is something people consume more when income goes down. While she cleverly cites ramen noodles as an example, I’d like to extend her metaphor to include another crowd favorite: sugar.

Sugar is a sweet-tasting carbohydrate comprised of glucose and sucrose, but more importantly, it is addictive and offers little nutritional value (aside from the natural sugar found in fruit). THIS STUDY shows that excessive internet use can result in a similar type of addiction. Some term this addiction as Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) or Compulsive Internet Use (CIU), and research shows that it can cause mental distress and clinical impairment. In the article titled “Reality Check: The performance gap between US Newspapers print and online products,” Dr. Chyi clarifies that contrary to popular belief and word of mouth, newspapers are not dying. In fact, their readers and accessibility surpass that of digital news sources. Why is this misconception perpetuated, and what does this have to do with sugar?

                I think that news reporters erroneously believe in the popularity of digital news because when you consider the prevalence of internet addiction, how could digital news NOT be more popular? One would think that if people spend so much time on the internet, then of course they value and read online news. However, similar to sugar, just because internet use is easy and convenient does not mean it is higher quality, or more nutritious. Despite the temptation of online news, readers have found that the “broccoli” of news sources – the newspaper – is redeeming in its own right. Similar to organic food, print news is more expensive and not as easy to obtain. However, it is also more substantive and provides a more emotionally-impactful experience. Where sugar (the internet) triggers the chemical release of the dopamine and creates a temporary sensation of pleasure, broccoli (print news) contains fiber that enables users to remain fuller and more satisfied for longer.  

                While a bushy stock of broccoli may not be as outwardly tempting as a cookie or chocolate cake, the positive effects of consuming it are last far longer. How does one opt for the better nutritional choice? In simple terms, read the label, and you will find that contrary to sugar's appeal, health experts recommend broccoli because it is the healthier chocie. In the news world, Chyi urges readers to “rely on audience research as opposed to wishful thinking or guess work.” By relying on research and reading the labels of news sources, print news – or broccoli – will win every time.