I posted a truncated form of this as a comment below, but I think it bears expansion into a full post, because I think some people misunderstood what I was saying in my last post.
First, let me preface this by saying that if you subscribe to the paper and/or click on an ad once in a while when you’re reading online, then I obviously was not talking about you in my last post, and there is absolutely no reason you should feel upset or defensive. If the shoe doesn’t fit, you needn’t feel obligated to wear it.
Second, I appreciate the compassionate remarks concerning the layoffs at the World, but please understand that I did not mention my job situation to elicit sympathy. I mentioned it because people were asking why I hadn’t updated the site in a long time, and the answer was: Because I changed jobs.
I could have glossed over the fact that I was pink-slipped, but I’ve been reading a lot of articles about the state of the newspaper industry lately, and it struck me that my layoff was symptomatic of a much larger problem, which Indie Tulsa readers can — and, IMHO, should — be at the forefront of solving.
Whenever I hear about the impact of the Internet on traditional newspapers, the old Buggles song “Video Killed the Radio Star” pops into my head. And in many ways, video did kill the radio star … but it couldn’t have done it without consumers’ permission.
That’s the whole point of this blog: We are not at the mercy of powerful corporations or distant, mysterious forces beyond our control. Our day-to-day decisions determine which businesses live and which ones die. It’s up to us to choose wisely and think sustainably.
So what choices can/should we make?
For obvious reasons, I’ve read more than my fair share of articles on this subject, and this is what I have learned about the newspaper industry:
1. Whether online content is free or subscription-based has little to do with the current state of journalism. Newspapers have tried it both ways, and neither way works. That’s because subscriptions make up a very small percentage of a newspaper’s overall revenue. The lion’s share of the income flows in through advertising, not circulation. Which brings us to the second, and more important, point:
2. Ad revenues are shrinking because online readers do not behave like traditional print subscribers. Print subscribers look at ads and occasionally buy the products being advertised. Online readers typically don’t. Therein lies the problem. If online readers behaved like print subscribers, it stands to reason that newspapers would be making out like bandits, because it costs a lot less to publish online than it does to print and distribute a paper. But far too many online readers ignore the ads.
Are online readers the ONLY problem currently plaguing journalism? Of course not. After all, radio and TV didn’t kill newspapers, and there was certainly concern that they might. But they are one of the problems, and they could easily become part of the solution if they’d simply click on an ad once in a while to let the advertisers know they’re out there. It’s a small thing, but it helps. Buying a product from time to time? Even better.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask readers to spend a minute or two looking at ads for companies that fund a product they are using — especially when the World offers a whole directory of local advertisers selling every product imaginable. Surely we can all find somebody on that list worthy of our support.
I’m not asking you to buy stuff. I’m just asking you to look at the ads in whichever paper you read online (World, Urban Tulsa Weekly, Greater Tulsa Reporter, New York Times, whatever), and if you find one for something you were planning to buy anyway, consider buying it from a company that supports the newspaper you read.
If you’re willing to do that, I thank you. If you’re not … well, maybe I was talking about you in that last post. ;P
Capisce?
Emily





















