I’m baffled by the latest news out of Cal State-Long Beach about the “feasibility study” being planned by the dean of liberal arts to see whether the paper would be better off as an online-only publication. #

I don’t know of a single good reason to do that radical transition right now in the history of college media, and I don’t have to conduct a “feasibility study” and waste state money to find that out. #

The Daily 49er derives most of its operating income from print advertising. Less than 1 percent of income ($500) came from web advertising last year, according to their business manager. #

I’ve asked the CMA listserv for information about online advertising (thanks to Eric Jacobs of the Daily Pennsylvanian for the discussion), and the numbers are not pretty. #

A couple of people who e-mailed me mentioned that their percentages of revenue coming from online was less than 1 percent of their total revenue. Try this number on for size: $1,600 of a total $1 million budget. That’s a major daily college newspaper operation – with full-time advising staff and bills to pay. #

Another adviser offered up numbers like 1.5 percent on revenue of over $600,000 – or about $9,000. Another very large newspaper operation: $5,000 out of a $1.5 million – .33% #

If you think most college newspapers would benefit from killing their print products based on those numbers, you’re smoking dope. Period. I don’t mean to be ugly, but that’s cold, hard economic reality. Let’s put it this way – $9,000 will get you three decent-quality video cameras, or it might pay for a year’s worth of work from a couple of students. #

The economics of newspaper printing is a bit mystifying to those who operate on the outside. The dean at UC-Long Beach obviously sees printing costs as the major expenditure. But printing costs are generally not the greatest expenditure, even on college campuses. Let’s put it this way: You print 10,000 copies. Let’s say you spend $1,000 per issue. Two half page ads pay for your printing ($500 per half page ad). Everything beyond that point is paying for your student staffers, your advisers, equipment, rent, utilities, etc. #

Even if you took away the cost of printing, you’re still left with the other costs of putting out a product – staffers, office space, equipment, utilities, etc. Online isn’t going to pay for those things right now. #

Another adviser mentioned readership of the printed version. As I have mentioned previously, surveys have shown that students continue to pick up the print edition of the paper in numbers that “professional” newspapers should envy. The readership online, while strong on some campuses, is not as strong on others. And the online readership is a different readership – it’s composed of a lot more faculty, staff, alumni, and parents than the print edition. #

I am always the first in line about trumpeting the things we need to be doing online, but right now, print is still paying most of the bills, and bringing in most of the readers for the college media. Training for the future of journalism means training students to be “platform agnostic” (a term used by Sulzberger of the New York Times previously), not killing the print product. #

There are a few places where an online-only presence might be warranted – a small school where all the costs of the paper are paid through student services fees. But for most papers, it’s not an option right now. I’m not sure if it will be until most students are carrying wireless iPods and surfing the web. Even then, I think there will be opportunities to use print as a secondary publication – web-first, then to print. #

Another thing to consider: Getting this wrong could be a fatal move. It might seem easy to go online-only, but going back to print after losing your presence through an online-only shift would be difficult to survive. #

I’m hoping to get in contact with the folks at ECSU over the next few days and find out what they’re learning in their second year of online-only publication. #

Print Friendly