Recently, a salesman came by my house trying to sell me a subscription. No matter how great of a salesman he was, I wasn’t buying it… He lost me at ‘newspaper.’
If you ask me, newspapers are a dying method of print. While many forms of print advertising (like direct mail) are still seriously outperforming digital marketing, printed news is succumbing to the better, real-time news sources.
Look at it this way: news on paper doesn’t make sense. It’s out of date before it hits the stands.
Here’s why – there are way too many different ways to get information. Smart phones, news apps, social media – information travels faster than the man of steel nowadays. If I can learn within minutes that my friend in London stubbed his toe through Facebook, imagine how fast news travels.
The print that has value today has to be lasting, which news is most certainly not. Ink on paper is useful for many things, but competing in a space where real-time rules is an uphill battle.
Why do I need printed news when I have a wide enough Facebook network to get most of my headlines? Anytime there’s a local or political event, or some interesting sporting news, someone somewhere is posting it on Facebook. Although it’s not just Facebook – other social media outlets move faster (Twitter anyone?) and do just as good or a better job broadcasting to the masses.
There’s also online websites for MSNBC, CNN, FOX – take your pick – they are all online, and without checking I can guarantee that some or all have smart phone apps. Even the newspaper publishers themselves have websites.
Anything that’s newsworthy is being broadcasted somewhere digitally. It’s also out within minutes, or hours – you don’t have to wait until the next day to hear about it. Not to mention that lifestyles have changed since newspapers began. Reading your morning paper has less value when you can get more information faster and closer to when the news happened.
Am I wrong? Do you agree? Tweet at me @TheRealTomZobel and share your thoughts.
Until Next Time,