Nieman Foundation at Harvard
With its $250 election-night event, The New York Times is offering some of its readers a new kind of fix
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
May 27, 2015, 11:32 a.m.
LINK:  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   May 27, 2015

It’s an annual moment of print realism here at Nieman Lab: The posting of the attention slide from Mary Meeker’s state-of-the-Internet slide deck. It’s enough of a tradition that I can now copy-and-paste from multiple versions of this post. Here’s a sentence from the 2013 version:

For those who don’t know it, Meeker — formerly of Morgan Stanley, at VC firm Kleiner Perkins since late 2010 — each year produces a curated set of data reflecting what she sees as the major trends in Internet usage and growth. It may be the only slide deck that qualifies as an event unto itself.

And a chunk from the 2014 version:

What’s useful about Meeker’s deck is that its core data serves as a punctuation mark on some big, ongoing trends. The kind of trends we all know are happening, but whose annual rate of progress can be hard to judge. Like, say, the continued demise of print.

The Meeker slide that always interests me most is the one where she shows how American attention is divided among various forms of media — and how that division lines up with where advertising dollars go. How much of our attention goes to television, say, versus how much of our advertising go there?

It’s not absolute dogma that the two — audience attention and advertising dollars — always be equal. But it makes sense that they would tend toward parity. More people listening to the radio should lead to more companies advertising on the radio, or vice versa.

So let’s travel back in time. Here’s Meeker’s chart for 2011:


The two things that jump out at me: Print gets a lot more advertising than it gets attention. And mobile is the opposite. You’d think that would equalize with time.

Here’s 2012:


Equalization! Or at least the path to equalization, proportionately. Print loses attention, but loses ad dollars a bit more quickly; mobile gains attention, but gains ad dollars a bit more quickly. (Sizable margin of error here, it’s worth saying.)

Here’s 2013:


The print story remains the same: down in attention and in ad dollars. But note there is still a wide gap between the two — print still gets far more ad dollars than its hold on the American attention would seem to “deserve.”

Finally, here’s the new 2014 chart (it’s slide 16):


The mobile growth everyone anticipated is happening — moving from 4% to 8% in 12 months’ time. And print continues to lose both time spent and revenue.

Let me wrap up by copying what I wrote last year:

Print advertising is not coming back. It will fall further. Substantially further. All newspaper planning for the coming few years needs to reckon with that basic fact.

Mobile continues its rocket rise, and there’s still lots of room for ad revenue growth. And now it’s even eating away at the Great American Time Suck, television. Mobile is eating the world, and most news organizations make only a pittance off it.

Lots more interesting stuff in Meeker’s complete deck.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
With its $250 election-night event, The New York Times is offering some of its readers a new kind of fix
“Spend an exciting evening in the company of our top political minds at The Times Center as they deliver expert analysis and global perspectives on the outcome of this year’s presidential race — while returns are coming in.”
The Texas Tribune updates its premium political coverage for an email newsletter world
Goodbye, Texas Weekly. Hello, The Blast.
The Information’s Jessica Lessin on how she’s scaling an already-expensive subscription product
Going both upmarket to investors ($10,000 a year) and downmarket to students ($234 a year).