Newspaper ad revenue falls back to the 1950s

Downwards curve.

Rumour has it the newspaper industry is not doing too well. How do you know when you're not doing too well? According to this graph by economics professor Mark Perry, it's when you regress 60 years.

The graph shows revenue from US newspaper advertising adjusted for inflation, and it's in a bit of a downwards curve. In fact, it's gone back to the '50s:

It's not a great place to be in, although the clothes are arguably better there. But perhaps the most interesting information on this graph is the online revenue line - after all, putting papers online for free has stolen ad revenue from print, right?

Jay Rosen seems to think so - pointing out that that newspaper advertising peaked the year blogging became an option. But Techdirt argues that the problem is not the fact that paper content became available for free. If this was the case online ad revenue would have increased over the last few years - and as we can see from the graph it declined almost from conception, and just as rapidly as print. Instead, it's the thousands of online communities that have sprung up, replacing any role print newspapers had here. Techdirt says:

The problem that newspapers came up against wasn't that they were suddenly giving out content online for free, but that there were very, very quickly millions of other "communities" that people could join online, such that the community of folks reading the newspaper started to go down, and with it, the attention went away.

But the argument seems a little flawed. After all, newspapers have never been able to act as "community centres" in the same way online forums can: the readership don't meet each other, and the only form of interaction is writing in to the paper itself - an effort not always rewarded in print. While they may have diverted some attention, online forums don't provide direct competition with newspapers.

What's the key cause of the decline? For the moment I'll go with a quote from Perry:

It's another one of those huge Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction.

A 1950s advert. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.