so...print newspapers are still alive!

This week’s reading told me that first, the statement that print newspaper is dying is merely a myth (Chyi, Lewis, & Zheng, 2012). Second, The major source of the revenue for newspaper is advertisement on print newspaper, not advertisement on online newspapers. Free newspapers business is still thriving recently (Tennant, 2014). If free newspapers are viable then we can assume that paid newspapers cannot be too bad.

Since advertising revenue is major source for newspaper. That fact tells newspapers owners that “don't charge your readers for contents.”  The study showed that free newspapers have advantage over paid. Besides, “content is king and if the paper is lousy, people will not be engaged, paid or free,”(Tennant,2014). I want to ask, “Are people willing to pay if the content is good?” This study somewhat answered my question. It showed the decision makers don't believe paid or free content make readers more “engaged” in a newspaper. It is what decision makers “believe”. Maybe to survey or interview readers can yield a more precise answer.

As a reader, I think content supposed to be free. Major revenue for newspapers comes from advertising. The amount of content fee is too small to help, then why charge readers for the content? The economic value of content is to attract readers for advertisers. To be more specific, readers are commodity of media (Smythe, 1981). Content is a tool to produce readers.  

The reading raised another interesting question. Newspapers are dying is a myth. How this fallacy affects demand (Chyi, Lewis, & Zheng, 2012)? Will the statement that newspapers are dying influence consumer behavior? If newspapers are still thriving, does it imply that the change of news consumption behavior didn't affect newspapers business? Or the fact is that consumers didn't change their habits reading print newspapers.