Doubting Bro,
I enjoyed your analysis. Thank you.
-LWT
As did I. That was a great analysis.
Does the rapid end of paper news forbode a crisis for the WT?
by jamiebowers 41 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Quotes
WTS's business model has been, in the past:
- book and periodicial publisher (with non-traditional distribution channel, using slave labour)
- real estate developer (i.e. the KH shuffle, wherein congs are split, then merged, every couple decades; plus Brookly fixer-upper; again with non-traditional slave labour)
- event promoter (i.e. assemblies, again with non-traditional slave labour)
We do not know how much each Business Group contributes to the bottom line -- in fact, it is difficult to even know what the bottom line is.
Periodical publishing is almost dead; the cost of putting information on wood pulp is rising; the cost of putting that same information on the "inter tubes" is tiny. (Yes, I love reading the paper in the park too, but the loss of tactile experience is a different conversation). I heard recently that *IF* the New York Times purchased an Amazon "Kindle" book reader for every one of it's subscribers and eliminated print completely, it would save millions of dollars even in the first year. I don't know if that is true or just Kindle hype, but the numbers sounded correct to me. I also heard the New York Times recently had to mortgage it's property to get operating cash.
Now consider: if the New York Times -- which produces content that people want to consume which can monetize its operation using paid advertising (something the WTS has not done since the Miracle Wheat and Miracle Motor Oil days) -- is having trouble maintaining financial viability, I think it reasonable to assume that WTS is also having a severe cash flow squeeze.
Traditionally, the cost of production was covered by "voluntary donations" (or by set prices prior to the early 1990s) for the dead-tree rags with which they were choking the planet. I posit that this business model is untenable in the post-print age. The New York Times (sorry to use them again) previously tried to have a "paid" section on their website, but it simply didn't work: people do not want to pay for internet information, even from the NYT. People that would pay $2.00 for a newspaper do not want to pay even $0.02 for the same information online. It seems the perception of value is different. NYT has since abandoned online paid subscriptions and are using web advertising.
A counter example: Consumer Reports is able to successfully sell web site membership; they might be able to transition away from magazine publishing and survive. Also, PBS & NPR are able to survive without traditional advertising by using "membership drives" and "corporate sponsorship" of content. In some ways, the WTS has already shifted partially to the PBS model: sitting through a 30 minute "WTS needs more money" talk is like sitting through the PBS membership drive; the difference you are not rewarded with an interesting show at the end of the begging session.
So the question is this: is the Publishing Business Group in WTS like the New York Times? Or more like Consumer Reports & PBS? Or like none of these?
Yes, I realize WTS has one HUGE advantage over these real business examples: ZERO TAXES. That makes it easier for them to remain viable, but will it be enough to save them through a paradigm shift?
Are the Cheese and Cracker men going to be able to make the strategic decisions necessary to replace a dead Business Group with a new, viable one? Or will they sit on their hands and pray to jahoobee and hope for a destruction of the world to solve their financial problems?
"Only time will tell" ~ Kent Brockman, news anchor, The Simpsons.
~Q