Here is the most depressing chart I've seen in some time:
Basically we now take in the same amount we did in 1950, about $20 billion a year, which is still a nice piece of change. But:
So the reason newspapers are in trouble isn't that they aren't making lots of money -- they still are; advertising is a huge, huge business, as any app developer will try to tell you -- but that their business models and payroll depend on so much more money. The U.S. newspaper industry was built to support $50 billion to $60 billion in total advertising with the kind of staffs that a $50 billion industry can abide. The layoffs, buyouts, and bankruptcies you hear about are the result of this massive correction in the face of falling revenue.
Comments
Revenue is only half of the picture. In 1950, newspapers relied on hot metal, which was cheap. Today's newspapers use offset, which requires a lot of expensive non-recyclable supplies. The 1950 newspaper was on cheap pulp. Today's uses expensive groundwood. The 1950 newspaper was b/w. Today's requires four passes to lay down color ink.
In 1950, virtually all advertising was ROP. Today, much is inserts. And in 1950, 25% of a newspaper's income was subscriptions and single-copy sales. Today, it's less than 15% - the cost of the average newspaper doesn't even cover the expense of the paper, ink, and delivery.