Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Publishers claim they’re taking Facebook’s News Feed changes in stride. Is the “bloodletting” still to come?
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
March 15, 2012, 9:58 a.m.
LINK: newsosaur.blogspot.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   March 15, 2012

Newsosaur Alan Mutter noticed that the Newspaper Association of America released their final 2011 ad revenue numbers Wednesday, and you won’t be surprised to learn they’re not good. The headlines:

— Ad revenues (print + online) are less than half what they were in 2005 ($49.4 billion vs. $23.9 billion).

— Online ad revenues were up in 2011, but only 6.8 percent from 2010. Newspapers still earn $6.36 in print ad revenue for every $1 in digital ad revenue.

— Mutter notes that the last time newspaper ad revenue was this low was in 1984. But it’s even worse when you take inflation into account.

The last year newspaper ad revenues were this low in real dollars was in 1954. That year, the newspaper business earned just under $2.7 billion — which in 2011 dollars would be around $22.5 billion.

Go check Mutter’s post for more good data, including some numbers that put the newspaper industry’s underperformance in the context of other traditional media industries. Rick Edmonds also has a good take over at Poynter. The full NAA numbers are here.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Publishers claim they’re taking Facebook’s News Feed changes in stride. Is the “bloodletting” still to come?
“Let’s put the nail in the coffin of chasing clicks and likes.”
What (if anything) do Facebook’s News Feed changes mean for fake news?
Plus: Lessons from Bolivia and Slovakia, and what’s the reach of fake news in the EU?
Newsonomics: NPR’s Ross Levinsohn scoop delivers a double blow to Tronc
The Tronc rollercoaster continues: Just as it tries to unveil a familiar strategy (“gravitas with scale”!), its top digital leader’s past catches up with him.