This is what Patrick Daniel said in his article in the ST a few days’
back. I must say I agree with his assessment but for different reasons.
Digital and social media have carved out a big chunk of the pie and
readership from print media and this is a fact. The younger generations
are more comfortable with digital media and will keep fleeing the ground
with a balance that will tip in favour of digital media in the long
run.
On the other hand, print media has its own turf that is cut out for it.
In fact both have their own audience and it is only a matter of who gets
a bigger slice of the pie. The development of the two media is
diverging into one that is reporting on facts and events, thanks to the
political leadership, and another into more opinionated discourses and
very interactive in nature. Digital and social media are going to be
very personal, very emotional and with a very high rate of participation
by the readers. It is a two way affair while print media is just
reporting. The readers just read what the reporters reported. The
reporting role is still necessary for the full time reporters to go
around gathering news to report on and being paid for it.
The ST and its stable of lesser news media are doing well. According to
Patrick Daniel, it is all about a commanding brand. I wonder if the
brand would still be that commanding when other brands are allowed to
print and sell their news. Why are there no neutral or alternative
brands? Search me? In a monopolistic environment, it is elementary to
gain the biggest share if not all the share of the readership and can
crow about it. Where are the competitors? What would be the fate of the
ST media if there are competitors?
Would ST be doomed?
The print media’s shelf life has been extended. It will continue to
exist for a longer time. This is a truism as digital and social media
have their own limitations. When the latter becomes full fledge media
with their own professional reporters, the balance would be tipped
further to favour digital media. For the time being, the ST stable of
news media shall rule the waves as the only media available. Just like
the other monopolistic services, not making money and maintaining the
market share is simply idiotic.
Print media has had to change because the old revenue model based on the "monopoly" of paper no longer applies.
ReplyDeleteAnyway most media companies have embraced the electronic frontier. However, they've had to adapt, and that means cutting back on staff and investing more in IT, and doing more "cross-branding" aka "joint ventures" with non-media enterprises.
Newspapers online have audio and video media content. There's little distinction now between say, TV news network and a newspaper.
My anecdotal experience: I haven't bought a paper or a magazine for years, since e-readers and tablets came out. Electronic media is easy to annotate and clip, plus you can link everything, including your own notes -- sure beats the old days of "scrapbooking".
"Print media’s doom exaggerated"
ReplyDeleteWell! Patrick Daniel is certainly an unbiased source for such sentiments. There is no self-serving interest there.
many of the articles in shitty times are bought from reuter or agency presse overseas news, you can read their articles online real time free, newspapers are like snail mail !
ReplyDeletethey are doing well just that they moving away from their core business only !
ReplyDeleteThe greatest exaggeration now is all about
ReplyDeletethe visit of a harmless bird of darkness visited the PMO Office.
Will any from that Office be leaving?
I won't mind paying to read RB's juicy posts even if sometimes got poked by the sharp corners.
ReplyDeletePrint media will gradually disappear. Kids these days are all on tablets not books.
ReplyDelete