In a word, yes.
Newspapers have a unique place in the marketing world. For many, reading the local newspaper is nothing short of a sacred ritual along with their morning coffee and fuzzy slippers. I would say though that the relevancy of newspapers for the generations below Boomers is increasingly questionable. My gut feelings tend to go against the data released by NADbank (Newspaper Audience Databank) recently. Their data is frankly startling, but I'll be the first to admit that hard facts trump my "feelings".
NADbank 2009 Canadian Newspaper Survey
NADbank's website states that the NADbank 2009 Study provides newspaper readership data for 83 daily newspapers in 53 markets and 60 community newspapers in 33 markets across Canada.
The study's authors go on to speak confidently about the relevancy of newspapers, leading with the headline:
"NEWSPAPERS REMAIN AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE FOR CANADIANS
Once again, daily newspapers have demonstrated their value to Canadians. Despite constant rumours of their imminent demise, newspapers continue to be a relevant source for news and information across Canada. Over three-quarters (77% - 14.7 million) of adults living in markets where a daily newspaper is available read either a printed or online edition each week."
Okay, okay. But a healthy dose of skepticism should be allowed, right?
After all, I can't help but notice that the entire study appears to be a bit self-serving. NADbank's committees are stacked with newspaper employees and media agency people. Anyway, I digress...
Mitch Joel, a guy I admire in the digital marketing arena, wrote an interesting article about the topic. He muses that the future of news may be online. Joel writes on his TwistImage blog,
"When looking at how these free, digital-only publishing houses work compared to the traditional news media, the differences are staggering.
From how the journalists are found, managed and paid to the marketing and advertising models, to the actual management infrastructure, one would not be hard-pressed to say that they look nothing like the industry that they inherited and digitized. Maybe the newspaper industry has to look well beyond the current model of simply copying-and-pasting their print content and publishing it online to re-imagining what publishing means in a world where 20 people and a WordPress publishing platform can do the job using text, images, audio and video that it used to take 200 people to do in a fraction of the time and cost."
I found Mitch Joel's blog post to be very interesting, not to mention the responses it garnered. I'll end this article with my highly subjective take on the subject, which I orginally wrote as a comment on his site.
I'm 33 and I rarely read a newspaper.
I can't really think of any Gen Xers that do. I've never bought a newspaper in my life, but my wife and I sometimes enjoy the novelty of looking at a big city paper left outside our hotel room door.
Relevant news bubbles to the top through digital channels... it finds me. Important world events blast through to me on Twitter. Eg. Not only can I learn about the chaos in Haiti, but DO something instantly - donate money by text messaging! Newspapers are all PUSH, no share. No interaction. No do this now. I don't see how newspapers can survive. They just aren't relevant. (I'm speaking personally here, remember! Many of Twin Creek Media's clients advertise in the local newspapers, and rightly so. As always, it's about the right message, to the right audience, at the right time & place. A subject for another article.)
I don't watch news on TV either. I'm sick of the sensorship and focus on negativity.
Free news online is awesome. Does it hurt newspapers? Probably. Maybe newspaper execs should read that famous little book about change: "Who Moved My Cheese?"
Before you write me off as a total geek, understand that I love the printed word when it comes to real books. A great novel, work of fiction or non-fiction is not the same in digital/gadget format. I like to kick back in my favourite chair with a real paper back just as much as my daddy and grand daddy did. 
Summary
Newspapers are here to stay (for a while). From a marketing perspective, newspapers reach a large population of habitual readers. Information heavy ads tend to do well in the relaxed and unhurried ecosystem of print. Certain big ticket consumer items such as houses, cars, electronics, and furniture tend to hit the mark in print (although, I think many brands are re-evalutating their marketing mix). Food and household staple ads also seem to be everpresent in newspapers, perhaps surviving on Cupon Queens & Kings. Newpapers can play a bigger role in your marketing mix depending on your target demographic. Boomers and seniors for example, are not rushing to check Twitter on their iPhones (actually, you'd be surprised!) so newspapers are a good choice to reach them. As a marketer, I just can't wait for the juicy eye-tracking, heat map, CPA-super-stats to be applied to the newspaper world. The digital world has spoiled us with the ability to measure everything. We want evidence! Nanochip-woven papyrus anyone?
March 21st, 2010 - 19:51
Awesome post, as usual James. Having spent a good part of my career in the newspaper biz, I have some thoughts on the 2009 NADBank release.
First, the day to day ’sky is falling’ reporting that characterized the global economic situation was very good (and perpetuated by) the newspaper business. They are also aggregating online with print readership, which from and advertiser perspective is problematic. My hunch is that the small growth in readership was all online but they certainly won’t be telling that story since most of their $$$ come from traditional print ad dollars.
What we also don’t see is the trending for those all important 18- 24 and 25-34 demo’s… had those numbers been up, they would have been tweeted ad nauseum and likely made the front page since that would be really BIG NEWS. What has always bugged me about the NADBank release (and having worked with the numbers from the ‘inside’) is it’s not transparent. It is really hard to get a true picture of what these numbers really mean.
That being said, I am glad to see editorial teams have also finally embraced social media such as twitter and FB as a way to connect with their readership and strengthen reader relations on a more personal level. In big markets such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto etc., readers will often follow a columnist, similar to the way we follow people online. I follow the Vancouver Sun on Twitter and recieve several tweets throughout the day on breaking news and story updates.
But we are not in Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal. We are in Kelowna. Do we, a real estate company, buy newspaper as part of our media plan? Yes, but the messaging is targeted and whenever possible, we try to engage on a different level by submitting editorial features relevant to the industry and Kelowna.
Keep up the great blogs!
PS- Its funny that you mention the ‘Cheese’ book. When CanWest bought the metro dailies and the National Post from Holliger back in 2000- all of us that worked in the national office recieved a copy of said book. I still have it… I suspect Leonard recently reread it himself.
March 21st, 2010 - 20:23
Thanks for your comments Shauna. I wondered if anyone else would pick up NADbank’s grouping of print & digital readership stats together!
It was interesting to hear your “insider” point of view too on transparency. It reminds me of the mental wrestling matches I’ve had over demographic information with local radio stations. It’s a tricky subject, but it may find it’s way into another blog post soon…
March 26th, 2010 - 12:54
I wonder how much those numbers are skewed. For example, I would almost never go out to buy myself a newspaper. When I used to work in an office I would read a newspaper almost everyday while I ate in the lunchroom.
Did I read it because I prefer to read a newspaper? No, I read it outta sheer boredom while I was eating and the newspaper was already on the table.
But, If I got asked, I would say that I read a paper newspaper every single day.