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
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.