The fundamental problem with newspapers’ online endeavors.

olnIt’s no secret that the newspaper industry has been struggling with finding a lucrative business model to augment or replace the traditional print medium supported by subscriptions and advertising.

The problem is, their efforts are thwarted by market realities at every intersection, setting up the potential for head-on crashes everywhere.

In October, the results of an analysis conducted by several University of Texas researchers were published that illustrate the big challenges involved.

The researchers pinpointed 2007 as the year in which most large newspapers’ online versions had been available for about a decade, meaning that they had become “mature” products. The evaluation looked at the total local online readership of the Top 50 American newspapers, and found that nearly all of them have been stagnant in terms of growth over the past decade.

Even worse, since 2011 more than half of the papers have actually lost online readership.

The issue isn’t that people aren’t going online to consume news; the precipitous drop in print newspaper subscriptions proves otherwise. The problem is that many consumers are going to news aggregator sites – places like Yahoo News, CNN.com and other non-newspaper websites – rather than to sites operated by the newspapers.

That leaves online newspapers attracting disappointing advertising revenues that can’t begin to make up for the loss of those dollars on the print side. To wit, the University of Texas study reported that total newspaper industry digital ad revenues increased only about 15% between 2010 and 2014, going from ~$3 billion to ~$3.5 billion.  That’s pretty paltry.

The problem goes beyond ad revenue concerns too. In a market survey conducted in 2012, two-thirds of newspaper subscribers stated that preferred the print version of their daily newspaper over the web version.

I find that finding totally believable. I am a print subscriber to The Wall Street Journal whereas I read other newspaper fare online.  My daily time spent with the print WSJ ranges from 30 minutes to an hour, and I peruse every section of the paper “linearly.”  It’s an immersive experience.

With online newspaper sites, I hunt for one or two topics, check out the headlines and maybe a story or two, and that’s it. It’s more a “hit and run” operation, and I’m out of there in five minutes or less.

The notion of carefully picking my way through all of the menu items on an online newspaper’s navbar? Forget it.

And with such a tentative relationship with online newspapers, do I want to pay for that online access? Nope.

Magnify that to the entire market, and the web traffic stats show the same thing, which is why online advertising revenues are so underwhelming.

Once again, the optimistic goals of newspaper marketers are running up against cold, hard reality. The fact is, people don’t “read” online in the traditional sense, and they’re quick to jump from place to place, in keeping with the “ADD” most all of us have developed in our online behaviors.

There just isn’t a good way that newspapers can take their product and migrate it to the web without losing readers, losing ad revenue – and indeed, losing the differentiation they’ve built for quality long-form journalism.  And so the conundrum continues …

What about your print vs. online newspaper reading habits?  Are your experiences different from mine?  Please leave a comment for the benefit of other readers.

U.S. Life Expectancy Favors Hispanics Most of All

Hispanic life expectancyThis past week, the U.S. government, Department of Health & Human Services (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) released the latest statistics on life expectancy for different groups of people. Notable among the reporting is that U.S. Hispanics outlive other population groups – whites by ~2.5 years and blacks by nearly 8 years.

The reasons aren’t entirely clear to the experts, but possible explanations are factors related to migration, lifestyle and culture. After all, ~40% of Hispanics are immigrants.

Dr. J. Mario Molina, a physician who works with low-income Hispanic patients in the Los Angeles area, offers one possible explanation: “Many Hispanics are poor and not well educated, but they typically eat home-cooked food and do physical labor.”

As far back as 1986, Kyriakos Markides, a University of Texas professor, came up with the term “Hispanic Epidemiological Paradox” to describe the low mortality rates and better health outcomes seen among the Hispanic population in the Southwestern U.S. “It seems so paradoxical that a population so disadvantaged could live so long and be relatively healthy,” he was quoted as saying at the time.

So far, so good. But unfortunately, Hispanics may not find their edge in life expectancy continuing into the next generation. How do we know this? It turns out that U.S.-born Hispanics have worse health outcomes compared to their foreign-born compatriots — including higher incidences of things like obesity, diabetes, smoking, alcoholism and drug dependency.

Beyond the fact that it sounds like America is the land of the “seven deadly sins,” Dr. Molina puts it this way: “As people become acculturated, they adopt American ways. They become more sedentary and eat fast food. You look more American the longer your family has been here.” Not the best prognosis, that’s for sure.

Salad, anyone?