I hate Firefox now

Rhetorical question (but maybe all the intrusive spyware will catch it and pass it on to Mozilla management), but does anyone actually like the new Firefox design? I spend hours clicking the ALT button so the stupid browser will display the very important tabs that are hidden in normal view. And the window tabs at the top of the page are too small and hard to read.

Since I won't use Internet Explorer, I'm shifting everything to Safari, which I also don't like, but I dislike is less than I dislike the new Firefox.

OK, I feel better now.

Do paywalls work out?

Excellent story by Russell Adams in the Wall Street Journal asks whether paywalls are successful. He points out that most newspapers aren't showing huge numbers of new digital subscribers, but correctly observes that isn't the point. Retaining print readers is.

Adams says, "Executives say these efforts are less about adding digital subscribers than they are about eliminating readers' incentive to ditch their print subscription for free alternatives online." He then points to cable TV that are opening online operations to paid cable subscribers.

It's an excellent refuting of the argument that low numbers of digital-only subscriptions indicates that they're a failure. It is convergence, folks.

Online streaming increases TV watching time

For years I've wondered why the commercial television networks didn't repeat shows, like we've become used to on HBO or Showtime. I remember when I quit watching "Lost." I loved the show the first season, watching it faithfully until I went to a beach over the winter holidays, and came back to find myself three shows behind. That was the last time I watched the show, and I could have been kept so easily.

That came to mind with a little story from MediaPost offering statistics on how a network online presence increases television watching. It increases total watching time, not just watching missed shows. I think it increases out interest in shows with evolving storylines. Sorry nets, but we don't like on your schedule any more.

Digital free for Post, but extra content available

The Washington Post is trying something different, Poynter reports. It's offering free digital apps for iPhone, iPad and various other smart phones, but adding premium content. This is the basic model cable television used. It worked for them, and I don't see why it won't work for the Post.

Meanwhile, Warren Buffet, who knows a few things about making money, doesn't understand the newspaper industry giving away online content, the Post reports, but thinks "they will have a decent future if they continue delivering information that can’t be found elsewhere." "He says,newspapers need to make sure they remain the primary source of information about subjects readers are interested in," the Post reports.

Hearst predicts half revenue to come from digital

Speaking of digital media, as we do so much these days, AdWeek reports that Hearst is anticipating that half of its revenue will come from digital subscriptions this year. Hearst charges extra for digital subscriptions, which may explain why its newspapers are dying so quickly.

Journal Sentinel move gets attention

Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel paywall (oops, they like it called a "digital subscription package"; sounds better) gets a lot of attention in a long story on Poynter, with a lot of details that haven't been locally reported. Apparently it's successful enough that other newspapers are look at how and what they are doing in Milwaukee.

There are some worrisome notes, especially on pricing. Along with an announcement that the "digital subscription package" -- which is free to print subscribers -- will soon have a tablet app, is the ominous phrase that " the tablet launch will come with a free-to-subscribers, two-month trial period," implying that print subscribers who want to use the tablet app will be charged extra. That means more revenue, but removes any incentive there is to remain print subscribers.

Now, a word from the other side

As long-time readers know, I really like print publications and believe they have a future. I'll give you some reasons why, but first here's the other side: Jordan Kurzweil at TechCrunch.com says "It’s been said before, but it needs saying again (and again and again): PRINT IS DEAD."

Kurzweil, CEO of a digital company, makes a good argument for why print has no future and that media companies should clear the decks for a digital future if they have any hopes of having a future.

My quibble is that he's ignoring media history, which shows that media has adapted tremendously over the years and few forms of media actually die. Most evolve. (Remember radio was going to kill newspapers, television was going to kill radio -- and certainly kill newspapers; none of that happened.) The point is that media evolves rather than dies.

As I look across the room to a iPad and type on a laptop while watching the Wisconsin-Ohio State basketball game on television, I certainly appreciate digital media, especially well-designed web sites. But I keep seeing people reading and buying print products, and I can't imagine some of them -- think National Geographic magazine -- losing a print presence.

And, in fact, some of his arguments try to argue both points. After making an argument that people want digital rather than print, he then says that Patch "can't seem to find readers or revenue," and, after making are argument that content and technology are equal, he states that content is the "most cherished" asset. Sorry but one can't have it both ways.

Still, Kurzweil has some good points. Print media has been poorly managed, although I think it's getting better lately. Younger audiences skew digital; most old media web platforms are awful; and, of course, that print revenues are declining.

Read his article. It's thought-provoking.

Print newspapers most trusted for election news

A few years ago one of the speakers Marquette Journalism brought in to discuss our field's future talked about something newspaper had that, she said, was a unique and valuable asset. That was the trust of the industry's readers.

Now comes a survey of likely voters in the 2012 general election that shows she was correct -- the most trusted source of election information is print newspapers. At the same time, there appears little trust in blogs and social media. The report in the Christian Science Monitor quotes Ben Agger, director of the Center for Theory at the University of Texas, Arlington’s Sociology Department, as saying that people haven't trusted politicians since Watergate. Now, he says,“they don't trust news media to provide anything but infotainment,” with print newspapers trust numbers higher than the rest.

Boston newspaper eschews the Net -- and it pays

Meet the Boston Courant, a weekly of 40,000 readers and rising, one that is profitable and filled with advertising.

What doesn't it have: a website.

Nor does it have a Twitter feed, a Facebook page or anything else to do with the Internet.

It's not that publisher David Jacobs doesn't appreciate the Internet, Nieman Reports says, it's just that it doesn't seem to make business sense to him. To paraphrase, the current business model ain't broke, so why fix it? Jacobs is not alone in eschewing the Internet; many other weeklies aren't on the web. But he has spent more than $50,000 designing a web page (eight years ago), but just doesn't see the business model that would make exchanging his current system for a digital one work.

With paywalls thudding down all around, maybe he's right.

Gannett adds paywalls

Gannett announced plans to erect paywalls for "scores of local community newspapers nationwide," according to reports. Nine of its community papers already have paywalls, most of the rest will be getting them now.

But not USA Today -- at least for the present. The company said it had no plans to erect a paywall for its national newspaper.

Of course, money is the reason. The company said that print and broadcast advertising revenues were way down pushing it to find other revenue sources -- like paywalls for digital.

Wisconsin newspaper numbers hold up

Amid all the despair and gloom covering the traditional media business these days, it's nice to see a bit of facts thrown in that might dispel some of that dark cloud. The Wisconsin Newspaper Association reports that not only are there as many newspapers published in the state (similar to national reports), but readership is growing due to fast-growing digital readership.

Speaking of digital readership, sparking up a glum earnings report for the fourth quarter of last year, Milwaukee's Journal Communications, Inc., publisher of the Journal Sentinel, reported 8,800 digital-only subscribers in the month and a half since it erected a paywall with 75% of them outside the newspaper's print delivery area. Print and broadcast advertising declined, but digital advertising continues to grow.

The reader numbers -- and holding steady on number of newspapers -- isn't bad for a "dying" industry.

Don't blow it, media

Yet more evidence that despite the growth of new media, Americans turn to old media for their news. The report, on NPR's Early Edition (follow the link to the NPR site, which will play the audio story), relies heavily on a Pew Research report to demonstrate that, when it comes to election news, Americans want old media.

"Social media has been much heralded but relatively little used by average voters and average citizens," according to Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

He may be correct, but old media -- with news operations cutting reporter positions and subsequent loss of content and advertising continuing to shift away from heavily-used media in favor of cheap and unproven Internet options -- continue to miss the point. Audiences are driven to trusted sources. Let's hope someone on the media side cuts the slow version of seppuku being practiced by old media.