Against state euthanasia
It’s clear that to keep struggling newspaper publishers out of the intensive care unit, carefully measured and targeted infusions are needed. And if taxpayer money is to be used for this, it should go toward the training and continuing education of editorial staff and publishers.
Column Well-dosed and well-placed infusions are needed to save ailing newspaper houses from the intensive care unit. And if taxpayers' money is to flow into this, then it should go towards the training and further education of editorial teams and publishers.
In the wonderful economic boom of 2000, newspapers in Germany earned around 1.7 billion euros from job advertisements alone. In an average year, this figure used to be around 1.3 billion euros. The latest research shows: These revenues are likely to be reduced by 600 to 700 million euros annually in an average labor market. This corresponds to around 10 to 15 percent of advertising revenue, but that's not all. A Delphi survey conducted by our institute predicts that daily newspapers will lose 5 percent of their circulation in the next four years and as much as 10 percent in the next eight years, based on today's figures. At the same time, the time readers devote to their newspapers will shrink by 10 percent by 2007 and by 15 percent by 2011. Young people in particular no longer consider it essential to look at a newspaper every day.
The current crisis means that the proportion of fixed costs is increasing, especially for regional newspapers. You have to seriously ask yourself whether publishers who only publish one newspaper can survive economically under the current conditions. The red pencil alone is no longer enough to overcome this misery. Many papers have long been in a situation where measures such as laying off five journalists, cutting travel expenses or canceling orders for competing papers no longer help in the slightest. The stores have been squeezed dry; an empty lemon is an empty lemon. So many publishers have no choice but to rely on cooperation with the next biggest competitor, whether this is of a technical, administrative or financial nature.
Swiss politicians are currently discussing press subsidies from the state as a countermeasure. A subgroup of the National Council's State Policy Committee under Andreas Gross (SP) recently proposed using the approximately CHF 100 million spent annually to reduce postal taxes on newspaper delivery to support secondary newspapers. Is this a sensible approach?
The establishment of competing newspapers in monopoly districts cannot be managed with these resources. This is shown by the example of St.Gallen, where Ostschweiz disappeared a few years ago. Since then, the St.Galler Tagblatt, which belongs to the NZZ Group, has enjoyed a unique position. A revival of Eastern Switzerland, which would require risk-taking publishers, is hardly realistic. Incidentally, this is also because the current placeholder is an open, by no means one-sided paper. Any counter-foundation would be costly and threatened with failure.
Supporting existing but ailing secondary newspapers seems more realistic. Either way, however, political intervention in the market would be necessary, which - with such limited resources - would of course quickly expose itself to accusations of arbitrariness. In view of Switzerland's political culture, there would be no immediate cries of "censorship", but heated debates would be inevitable here too, and support measures that do not require complicated selection decisions by state or quasi-state agencies, such as generous support for publishing training and further education measures, would be less objectionable in terms of regulatory policy. Even the idea of imposing certain conditions on monopoly newspapers, such as editorial statutes or foundation structures, would probably be less problematic than the state-controlled creation of artificial competition. Nevertheless, the Gross Commission has tackled a hot potato. We should be grateful for that. How the iron should be forged, however, requires further discussion.
Peter Glotz on the bloodletting of the press and alternatives to subsidyitis.
> Peter Glotz is an author and Professor of Media and Communication Management at the University of St.Gallen.
In the wonderful economic boom of 2000, newspapers in Germany earned around 1.7 billion euros from job advertisements alone. In an average year, this figure used to be around 1.3 billion euros. The latest research shows: These revenues are likely to be reduced by 600 to 700 million euros annually in an average labor market. This corresponds to around 10 to 15 percent of advertising revenue, but that's not all. A Delphi survey conducted by our institute predicts that daily newspapers will lose 5 percent of their circulation in the next four years and as much as 10 percent in the next eight years, based on today's figures. At the same time, the time readers devote to their newspapers will shrink by 10 percent by 2007 and by 15 percent by 2011. Young people in particular no longer consider it essential to look at a newspaper every day.
The current crisis means that the proportion of fixed costs is increasing, especially for regional newspapers. You have to seriously ask yourself whether publishers who only publish one newspaper can survive economically under the current conditions. The red pencil alone is no longer enough to overcome this misery. Many papers have long been in a situation where measures such as laying off five journalists, cutting travel expenses or canceling orders for competing papers no longer help in the slightest. The stores have been squeezed dry; an empty lemon is an empty lemon. So many publishers have no choice but to rely on cooperation with the next biggest competitor, whether this is of a technical, administrative or financial nature.
Swiss politicians are currently discussing press subsidies from the state as a countermeasure. A subgroup of the National Council's State Policy Committee under Andreas Gross (SP) recently proposed using the approximately CHF 100 million spent annually to reduce postal taxes on newspaper delivery to support secondary newspapers. Is this a sensible approach?
The establishment of competing newspapers in monopoly districts cannot be managed with these resources. This is shown by the example of St.Gallen, where Ostschweiz disappeared a few years ago. Since then, the St.Galler Tagblatt, which belongs to the NZZ Group, has enjoyed a unique position. A revival of Eastern Switzerland, which would require risk-taking publishers, is hardly realistic. Incidentally, this is also because the current placeholder is an open, by no means one-sided paper. Any counter-foundation would be costly and threatened with failure.
Supporting existing but ailing secondary newspapers seems more realistic. Either way, however, political intervention in the market would be necessary, which - with such limited resources - would of course quickly expose itself to accusations of arbitrariness. In view of Switzerland's political culture, there would be no immediate cries of "censorship", but heated debates would be inevitable here too, and support measures that do not require complicated selection decisions by state or quasi-state agencies, such as generous support for publishing training and further education measures, would be less objectionable in terms of regulatory policy. Even the idea of imposing certain conditions on monopoly newspapers, such as editorial statutes or foundation structures, would probably be less problematic than the state-controlled creation of artificial competition. Nevertheless, the Gross Commission has tackled a hot potato. We should be grateful for that. How the iron should be forged, however, requires further discussion.
Peter Glotz on the bloodletting of the press and alternatives to subsidyitis.
> Peter Glotz is an author and Professor of Media and Communication Management at the University of St.Gallen.
