Today's report on LA Observed that Ralphs had pulled its ad inserts from the Los Angeles Times reminded me that I'd received an email a week or so ago from a knowledgeable source who said he'd heard the grocery chain planned to cease advertising altogether in the Times and all LANG newspapers beginning in September. I haven't confirmed this, but was told Ralphs would rather advertise directly through the mail.
If true, this would represent a big blow to the newspapers' already beleaguered bottom lines. In addition to big drops in classified ads and losses from cutbacks in retail and auto spending, the past year has seen a few major advertisers, including Gottschalks and Circuit City, shutter their doors forever.
Aug 26, 2009
Ralphs pulls ads
Labels:
advertising,
bad decision-making,
LA Observed,
newspapers,
ralphs,
reporter g
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Might as well pull from the press-enterprise too--several folks have said that that paper is letting newsroom do advertising stuff anyway so it's not really a newspaper anymore
Classified is gone and not coming back. Local retail is on the way to being history due to organizations not understanding rates or how to run a sales force. Majors and national have been in a decline that will only speed up. Newspapers can make a rational profit but they won't visit those glory days of yesteryear.
The local newspaper declines are entirely the fault of several people. We should have a people's/community truth investigation to identify them and hold them accountable. The job losses are economic crimes against the unemployed. Laws should be written to hold them accountable and to mandate socially equitable rates for pay and for advertising.
I've also heard that Ralphs is pulling from LANG, but not from a trustworthy source.
LANG will lose them too, as well most newspapers around the country. Their rapidly shrinking circulation makes it less cost effective so get ready for newspapers becoming a relic.
Anonymous 7:52, what in the world are you talking about? Care to give some data to support your claim? Any other conspiracies you would like to bring up? Maybe the culprit is Bigfoot?
no, bigfoot is way brighter than the dolts who have been running the show for the last few years. gut, 7:52, take your medicine.
As Michelle Obama said during the campaign, most people don't want alot, just enough. The massive newspaper layoffs have left a few with a lot, and many with nothing, and the people in the middle are the next to have nothing. A regulated media would serve the public interest. Newspapers are a public trust, just like the "rescued" banks. Government/worker review committees should have executive control over newspaper ownership, set ad rates and control management compensation. Progressive societies do similar things already. Do you really think its better now - plunging newspapers, massive layoffs, little news - than it would be under a social media? It would be consistent with the larger philosophy of the Obama Administration and in line with emerging global trends.
7:31, well said but I disagree with you on many fronts. You may be right, however, the thought of government setting ad rates has me laughing way to hard. You could say they can't do worse than those who are setting them know, but they would.
Traditional newspapers lay their employees because they are no longer viable. While I do believe there is a way for print media to make money, the solution is not for the government to subsidize them and have bureaucrats manage them. Who are the few getting rich? Zell has taken a bath with Tribune. No one is making money with big daily newspapers. The watchdog of the people managed by the government? Come on!
Post a Comment