Published: 17 March 2007.

By Peter Ricci

There is much debate in the Internet Industry about newspapers and many pundits have been writing them off as a spent force for years. Whilst their revenues have dropped considerably and they are set for further falls in classifieds  - what is it that they can do to stop the bleeding?

Over the past few years we have seen newspapers become a little like trash magazines, trying to get young generations to buy papers, a strategy that has only cheapened the mastheads and for the most part has failed. With quotes from ’sources close to Angelina’ and a ‘close friend’ which to anyone who has the slightest amount of grey matter means ‘no sources’ and ‘no friends’ and just a made up story - maybe from a photo!

This type of ‘news’ would make seasoned journalists cringe and really makes you wonder - how can they survive? Newspapers make more money from agents in tougher times - it is a historical fact that in buyer markets - sellers have to do more to get noticed, so this has helped somewhat in recent years. When the going is good and boom times come around - properties do not even get to the papers before they are sold.

There are still some excellent papers out there for the business person - The Fin Revue (Fairfax) I have always found to be reasonably fair - even with rivals companies products. But how can they last?

Newspapers and Magazines in the US over the past year have turned their entire marketing to subscription services and they practically give the magazines away. One of my favourites is Fast Company (Geeks and Cool Stuff), which a 12 month subscription costs $9.95 USD - yes $9.95 and most of the major magazines and newspapers are the same.

In my humble opinion newspapers must do the same here in Australia, they must stem the tide and win back readers and the only way to do this is to give daily subscriptions away for about $10 AUD per annum. This will excite many people into buying papers - I mean why not? Only $10 and it keep the advertisers happy. Remember, circulation is all about advertisers. The bigger the circulation the bigger the advertising revenues.

This is not to say it will stop the bleeding completely - Graeme Samuel gave a talk last year to the media industry and told them that 18-24 year old simply do not buy newspapers - and never will. They want it on their mobile phones, delivered to their computers. So that would have made the execs cringe. Rupert Murdoch has also conceded that newspapers have to change their ways dramatically and that revenues in classifieds will continue to fall. Now don’t forget these will make up the bulk of your buyers in 10-15 years!

This is why it is so important for these big companies to control agents on the Internet, if they lose it on paper, then they think they can make it up online - sorry - wrong tree! However, there is a limit to what agents will spend online and we are getting close to it now. I think an online advertising budget for a single office will max out at around $20,000 per annum.

Now Sunday will always be Sunday without the Sunday Telegraph, and Nine will have to wait until 2009 before 2009 is Nine (well kind of), but one thing is for sure, the next 10 years will see massive changes in the newsprint industry and even more changes online!

One good thing for PBL is the Internet and if the MyHome strategy is successful we will see more product placement than a Big Brother Commercial/Show and we will see on the 9 News and property shows these very placements. If PBL is going to be successful and get agents to pay I think the money will have to come from somewhere other than the budgets for Domain and REA and this means newspapers could be hit yet again.

Now if Google/Yahoo and MSN all get into property, it is going to hurt all current players and newspapers will not know what hit them - ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch and ouch!

Newspapers may be able to keep property in newspaper classifieds for the time being, but long term I think they are going to have to switch off the life support system as only the boldest of newspapers CEO’s will offer papers for free and that is some war I would love to see played out!

source: http://www.business2.com.au/2007/03/16/what-can-newspapers-do-now/

Reply from: Nick

8:13am Sunday, 18 March 2007

I’m 28, have purchased several properties and real estate is a pretty serious passion of mine.



I don’t read the paper - ever. As a buyer - the property section in the paper is next to useless as far as my needs are concearned.



Press provides me with:

Less choice;

Limited data;

No mapping;

Less photos;

No ability to submit written enquiries (I want to deal with agents in writing so I have records when searching);

Cannot be searched;



Plus I have to pay for a newspaper - despite it being less helpful to me than the internet. Not to mention it also makes a hell of a mess… 150 giant sheets of filthy paper - held together by nothing but thin air. I don’t need to deal with that on a Saturday morning.



Despite this, real estate agencies seem to spend MUCH more money on press ads than internet advertising… Correct me if I’m wrong here - but perhaps this is because although press is a lousy tool for selling HOUSES, its a good tool for selling AGENTS?



Press ads almost always contain massive glossy agent logos and the obligatory cornball agent portrait complete with hammed-up sales slogans - distributed in mass to the general public and all financed by the gullible vendor and his over inflated ‘marketing budget’.



Perhaps this is a cynical view but its the ONLY reason I can think of as to why agents I’ve sold with have always pushed press on me so heavily and why it is still the destination for the majority of an agencies marketing spend.



I certainly didn't get any benefit from the thousands of dollars I threw away on newspaper ads.

Reply from: Wayne

1:37pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

So if the above is true (and we all know it is) how are agents allowed to get away with this unconscionable conduct under the PAMD act of Qld lets say ? They have to work in the best interests of the clients by law, and yet they know Paper advertising is a waste of money for selling homes. Published data shows they get upwards of 70% of enquiry from either the Internet of a For Sale sign and yet they are allowed to push paper marketing campaigns onto vendors ? The public need to know these things and revolt against out of date marketing practises that should be made illegal ! Cheers Wayne (Yes I work at Zeroagents)

Reply from: Nick

3:48pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

Agents can easily argue press advertising *is* in the vendors interest, however there is a clear conflict of interest on the Agent's part if you examin the facts a little more closely. I know now that next time I sell a property I'll be a little more upfront with agents as to what *I* want.

Reply from: Wayne Shelley

6:23pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

The conflict of interest can lie in the fact that most of the Franchise groups get rebates from the press for ads over a year. So they spend clients money, but get the cash back.



And... the ads are solely to advertise a brand.. not the home.

Reply from: Nick Buick

7:00pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

Then that certainly should be looked into further. Wayne, as an agent yourself, can you tell us who is in charge of governing / policing the PAMD? I will raise this issue with some of our property lawyers and see if any of them can make any comments.

Reply from: Wayne Shelley

7:03pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

Firstly all complaints need to go to the office of Fair trading, and then to the REIQ (who are an association run by agents.. so you can work out how far THAT goes...)



Anthony in our business has a ton of info on this with statistics to back it up if you need more info, and I know he is in touch with you.



Great Blog.. needs more input !



Cheers



Wayne

Reply from: Nick Buick

7:47pm Tuesday, 03 April 2007

Why Fair Trading first? I would have assumed if the industry is regulated one would lodge complaints FIRSTLY with the REIQ (the industry body), THEN to Fair Trading (governing body) - otherwise you'd be going backwards?

Reply from: Paul Joseph Watson

1:48pm Wednesday, 06 June 2007

Number of mainstream U.S. news outlets that reported on Paris Hilton over the past week: 10,000+



Number of mainstream U.S. news outlets that reported on a meeting of nearly 200 of the world's most powerful people this past weekend; Less than a handful.



The Bilderberg Group meeting, an annual conference at which the consensus for future global policy is provably manifested, again passed by with barely a mention on behalf of America's corporate media.



The Dallas Morning News carried a single article about Texas Governor Perry's visit, a story that was subsequently picked up in brief blurbs by a couple of local Texas TV news affiliates and a few bylines on page 30 of a couple of papers in the lone star state.



Apart from that, save a mention in an online Village Voice blog - nothing, absolutely nothing about a confab of the most powerful and influential people on the planet. In comparison, G8 is a mere talking shop and yet it is lavished with attention while Bilderberg is hidden in the shadows.



Nothing in the New York Times and nothing in the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal, both of which were represented at the meeting. Nothing in Le Figaro of France or the Financial Times of London, who also were both represented by chief editors.



Media moguls who attend Bilderberg, such as Washington Post CEO and Chairman Donald E. Graham, swear an oath of secrecy and fulfil a promise each year to omit any coverage of Bilderberg from their news outlets.



Is it really any wonder that the traditional media model is dying and that more and more enlightened people in their droves are turning to alternative news sources in search of the truth?

Leave a comment

196,923 pages have been viewed from this website for September 2010. Please click here if you'd like to reach our audience..