Strategic challenges of newspaper publishing in an international perspective

Abstract

An analysis of newspaper industries in their national contexts exhibits strategic clusters of similar challenges, imposed by digital transformation and socio-economic change. While growth of media in general, newspaper reach, and Internet penetration are dominant factors framing the prosperity of newspaper publishing, dynamics of digital revenues from advertising and circulation still vary substantially also within such clusters. Only in very few countries, publishers achieve to collectively combine (still) growing overall revenues with advanced digital transformation.

Keywords

business/management/personnel new media/technological advances readership digital transformation business model international strategy

Digital transformation as a driver of change affecting all industries—although differing in scope and time scale—was addressed early in media industries in general (e.g., O’Reilly, 1996; Picard, 2000) and especially newspaper publishing (e.g., Chyi & Sylvie, 1998; Ihlström & Palmer, 2002; Outing, 2000), which was presumed to be among the first to reach a “strategic inflection point” (Grove, 1996) with an imperative to pluckily react (cf. van Kranenburg & Ziggers, 2012). At first, however, these new developments were rather welcomed by publishers as a source for complementary distribution channels of print content to (new) consumers and for generating some additional revenues (e.g., Chyi & Lasorsa, 2002; Eriksson, Åkesson, Svensson, & Fredberg, 2007; Kolo & Vogt, 2004). After having set up the first routine in handling their online operations, the narrative of publishers changed from online distribution of print content with no or only little media-specific adaptation to a new phase of more refined digital media or “cross-media” (e.g., Ibrus & Scolari, 2012) activities, respectively, taking advantage of the different properties of an increasing range of end-user devices and outlets for digital content. This is also reflected in changing research topics then encompassing the role of mobile devices including tablets (e.g., Gershon, 2013), the introduction of paywalls (e.g., Cook & Attari, 2012), and the exploitation of social media (e.g., Vukanovic, 2011; Wikström & Ellonen, 2012). On a more general level, the focus was on how to embrace multi-platform strategies (e.g., Doyle, 2013). During this phase, most research was quite specifically focused on individual elements of newspaper publishers’ activities and not on the entire business model (cf. Evens, Raats, & von Rimscha, 2017), the overall financial performance, or impacts on the practice of newspaper journalism.

Although nonacademic voices such as The Economist asked already in 2006, “Who killed the newspaper?” and Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, proclaimed a little later its very end for 2018 (cited by Whoriskey, 2008), scholars were more cautious, discussing “tensions” (Achtenhagen & Raviola, 2009) up to a “crisis” (e.g., Brüggemann, Esser, & Humprecht, 2012; Siles & Boczkowski, 2012). They mostly still assumed it to be fixable or conceived its feasible re-composition, respectively (e.g., McChesney & Pickard, 2011; Picard, 2008; Schlesinger & Doyle, 2014). After all, quality journalism, as having been established by newspapers, was seen as a cornerstone of democratic societies that must be safeguarded (e.g., Chamberlain, 2018; Habermas, 2007; Merritt, 2005; Rothmann & Koch, 2014). Its disappearance was not just being put up with as collateral damage of yet another industry in structural change.

With Christensen, Skok, and Allworth (2012), in their seminal essay on “disruptive innovation,” as early progenitors, academic research also came to more drastic conclusions about the future of newspaper publishing, questioning its survival and the sustainability of its traditional business model, respectively (e.g., Kolo, 2016; Thurman, Picard, Myllylahti, & Krumsvik, 2018). We see this heralding again a new phase of digital transformation in newspaper publishing: venturing into both new business areas and models—possibly also beyond editorial (news) content. In this context, business model innovation has emerged as a promising path to create or retain competitive advantage (cf. Wirtz & Daiser, 2017).

Parallel with the more fundamental conclusions on the future of newspaper publishing, research continued on selected managerial issues such as how to generate a variety of alternative or additional financial resources (e.g., Bechmann, Bilgrav-Nielsen, Korsgaard, & Jensen, 2016; Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017; Geidner & D’Arcy, 2015; Holm, 2016; Ladson & Lee, 2017), to organize innovation (e.g., Cestino & Berndt, 2017; Küng, 2015; Virta & Nando, 2017) and venture activities (e.g., Hasenpusch & Baumann, 2017; Kunz, Mütterlein, & Walton, 2017), to manage a newspaper as multi-platform media organization (e.g., Doyle, 2015), and to handle the relations with external (social media) platforms (e.g., Ju, Jeong, & Chyi, 2014; Nielsen & Ganter, 2017) and the impact of specific new technologies like blockchain, big data, voice interfaces, and artificial intelligence (e.g., Newman, 2017).

We shall use the term “business model” as an ontology to broadly capture “how enterprises work” (Magretta, 2002, p. 4), but acknowledge press subsidies (cf. Murschetz, 2014) and even a “third way” via engagement of the civil society (cf. Kolo & Weichert, 2014) as alternatives to the entrepreneurial way of financing newspaper journalism. Such approaches may also be considered to safeguard quality journalism but are not regarded here in a business context.

As a common denominator for references to “tradition,” we summarize a newspaper publisher’s business as based on a printed product with actual news. These are provided predominantly by professional journalists accompanied by information services. Revenues are generated from readers via subscriptions or newsstand copies (also summarized as “circulation revenues” in the following) and, to a substantial proportion, also from advertisers for classified, local, or national ads. Today, the standard business model of a newspaper also comprises an extension to digital offerings (also for mobile devices) that often go beyond the printed ones in their scope and timeliness. They mirror print revenues by additional advertising (however, with a larger variety of formats) and circulation revenues from “paid content” (besides subscriptions for a certain period of time also for a certain volume of articles). Insofar as they pursue this, newspapers still adhere to the traditional model. Publishing groups owning several newspapers can exploit economies of scope in addition to the economies of scale with a specific title (or brand) to optimize their business model.

Besides a generally diminishing number of print readers (not necessarily shifting to the newspaper’s own online offerings), the traditional business model brings laments about the over-aging of the audience, and a dwindling brand awareness among the young makes the medium less attractive for advertisers. Furthermore, the leverage of numbers of readers to numbers of sold copies is lost substituting print for digital (where it is 1:1 rather than print’s multiple), and cost per thousand values for “eyeballs” on digital media is strongly reduced. To this, add the unbundling of content, services, market places, and so on and a competition with new players in each category (losing revenues and profit margin), paralleled by a high share of fixed costs (cf. Kolo, 2016).

But is newspaper publishing altogether doomed now, or is there still room for maneuver (e.g., when the whole business model is overhauled)? The most recent evidence is not conclusive in this respect. Although in several highly developed economies, the closure of entire newspaper operations or the cessation of the print version was reported (e.g., Kolo & Weichert, 2014; Picard, 2017); in equally developed contexts, newspaper publishing is still profitable (e.g., Björkroth & Grönlund, 2018; Edge, 2019; Picard, 2017). However, that does not mean very much. A commercial operation with decreasing revenues and no turnaround of this trend in sight may be defensively perpetuated with layoffs and other cost cuts, also reducing its quality, but most likely the newspaper cannot thrive and sustain profitability.

Although some studies highlight potential changes to the business model that may lead to an improvement of their situation (e.g., Holm, Günzel, & Ulhøi, 2013; Küng, 2017; Olsen & Solvoll, 2018) or focus on peculiar newspaper types, such as free dailies and financial or weekly newspapers that may still prosper (e.g., Myllylahti, 2017; Tennant, 2014), today there is no evidence that digital revenues will ever completely compensate for the incurred losses in print (cf. Evens et al., 2017; Thurman et al., 2018), and the ability of incumbent news media to substantially transform is at least disputed (e.g., Karimi & Walter, 2016; Rothmann & Koch, 2014). How far such changes have gone and how publishers deal with them differs within a country but even more so in a global perspective.

However, in mature economies, recent studies (Kuhn, 2011, for France; Lehtisaari et al., 2012, for Finland; Casero-Ripollés & Izquierdo-Castillo, 2013; Goyanes & Dürrenberg, 2014, for Spain; Dekavalla, 2015, for Scotland; Cawley, 2017, for Ireland; Kolo, 2016; Kolo, Kunz, & Grasemann, in press, for Germany; Chyi & Tenenboim, 2017; Fan, 2013, for the United States; Villi & Hayashi, 2017, for Japan) show unanimously that digital revenues, on the basis of editorial content, do grow rather slowly and where the studies provide overall financial increases (which is most often not the case), they are slower by far than print declines—a phenomenon also observed already in some developing economies (e.g., Isyaku, Latiff, & Nasidi, 2018). Nevertheless, in selected emerging economies, the print business is still booming (cf. World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers [WAN-IFRA], 2017c), and there are nations where newspaper publishing never made it to substantial levels (cf. WAN-IFRA, 2017c), leaving potential for growth even in print.

Several studies refer to digital transformation in newspaper publishing, but so far, there is no comprehensive determination of its level, its rate of progression, and its key drivers in international comparison. Nor is there an empirical clarification of whether and how the digital transformation quantitatively contributes to newspapers’ financial prosperity. Furthermore, without an international perspective that allows for putting country-specific studies into a comparative context, national data’s explanatory power is limited.

Rationale

At a time when industry reports show that, in some countries, the number of newspaper titles is significantly declining while, in others, the overall newspaper publishing business exhibits double digit growth (cf. WAN-IFRA, 2017c), such a more differentiated academic perspective on newspaper publishing is needed. Such an international analysis should shed light on the crisis generally, and specifically identify countries with similar framework conditions that have found better responses than others and that can possibly be learned from. Instead of discussing a single current state of newspaper publishing, the industry’s various facets should be discerned and countries clustered in a way that then deserves a discussion of its challenges and specific strategies to cope with them. Some developments may be global in scale, others affecting a subset of countries, and some due to peculiar national issues.

A literature review could not identify an international comparative study on the diverse strategic challenges of newspaper publishing, nor did it turn up a comprehensive model that tries to explain the economic development of newspapers, based on a set of variables (as few as possible with as much explanatory power). No clustering scheme exists that groups countries by such variables. Clusters of countries belonging to different “media systems” (e.g., Hallin & Mancini, 2004) rather follow a media politics and regulation logic than a business one (albeit having economic effects as discussed below). Furthermore, system typologies till now encompass mostly industrialized countries and do not support a truly global perspective. Thus, this article proposes to help form the basis for theory-building, not testing existing theory.

For a better understanding of strategic options for newspaper publishers in times of digital transformation on the basis of quantitative empirical facts within a given country, this analysis is organized by several research questions:

RQ1:How do digital transformation and its related revenue contributions proceed on a global scale?

RQ2: To what extent do national characteristics determine the growth of total newspaper revenues?

RQ3:How is the level of digital transformation related to the overall prosperity of newspaper publishing?

RQ4:Which clusters of countries can be discerned according to shared strategic challenges for newspaper publishing?

Methodology and Data

Based on an exploratory study with an interdisciplinary perspective on potentially relevant framework conditions and inductive reasoning, this study attempts to derive a quantitative model of the development of newspaper publishers’ financial prosperity, which could then be tested for its long-term relevance and further refined in subsequent analyses. The guiding methodology is econometric modeling (cf. Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2004, for an overview of its role in economics and Greene, 2012, for multilinear regression analysis as one of its key methods and its application).

Digital transformation as a core concept is operationalized here by its economic effect as share of digital to the sum of all revenues. Digital transformation and change can obviously be conceptualized in other ways, such as the use of emerging media in journalistic practice or the level of interactivity with users via social media. However, this study’s emphasis is not on specific activities of individual publishers who may even outcompete their peers by them but rather on the context variables in a given country that frame the overall development of additional revenues, based on digital offerings.

To elaborate on the state and the dynamics of newspaper publishing in general and digital transformation in particular, this research aimed at complete sets of 1 dependent and 11 independent variables for the years 2012 to 2016, for as many countries as possible. Lacking an encompassing theory for the quantitative perspective pursued, this study proposes a model for a newspaper industry’s economic success in a given country through a bottom-up approach on the basis of established economic and managerial concepts.

The dependent variable here is the growth of the sum of all newspaper revenues. Clearly, revenue data can only be a proxy for the prosperity of a newspaper publisher’s business and does not account for more or less efficient management within a country or peculiar cost structures. But profit margins that would be a more direct measure for a newspaper’s prosperity are usually not reported on a national newspaper association’s level. However, a derivation of potential profitability and hence prosperity from rising revenues seems a plausible assumption at least on average (likewise for declining revenues). As we focus on the development of revenues specific to newspaper publishing, other revenues (e.g., logistics services beyond newspaper distribution that regional newspapers sometimes cover) that may add to it must be excluded when selecting an appropriate data source.

The total revenue growth we regard as being dependent with increasing abstraction on (1) characteristics of the two market arenas (see e.g., Anderson & Gabszewicz, 2006, on the concept of two-sided markets in publishing) publishers serve (advertising revenues from advertisers plus circulation revenues from news consumers—both digital and print and with respect to general audience reach of newspapers and Internet penetration), (2) characteristics of the national media system that newspaper publishing is embedded in, and (3) the general economic framework conditions of a country under consideration. Admittedly, many variables could be considered relevant for characterizing (1), (2), and (3). Of course, variables should be plausible, argued for by other research as being characteristic for the context they are supposed to describe, and be available in a consistent way for as many countries as possible. The later applied multivariate regression will show then which of them have explanatory value for the dependent variable (and do not in turn depend on other variables of the data set).

For the market arenas we regarded: (1.1) the ratio of digital to all revenues as an indicator for the level of digital transformation of newspaper publishing, (1.2) the ratio of circulation to advertising revenues to characterize the overall revenue logic and the absolute value of the sum of revenues (1.3), that we see as an indicator for the means available for industry wide innovation (countries with a larger newspaper industry have more means to spend). Furthermore, we take into account the newspaper reach (1.4) and the Internet penetration (1.5). For the national media system (b) we choose one indicator for the freedom of media (2.1) (see e.g., WAN-IFRA, 2018, on the importance of freedom of speech and related trust in media), one for the level of education (2.2) (that is discussed as an important factor for accessing news via newspapers, e.g., by Eveland & Scheufele, 2000, and for accessing digital media, e.g., by van Dijk, 2002), and one for the overall growth of all media (2.3), plus one for the general economic role of media within the economy (2.4) (see e.g., Kolo, 2015, on the impact of the general economic role of media on its growth), to cover political, societal, and financial aspects of a media system. We acknowledge that, potentially, additional variables exist to fully describe a national media system. General freedom within a country or the level of democratization are just two of additional descriptors—yet also strongly correlating with the variables taken into account for this contextual area. For the furthest context, the mapping of the general economic situation of a country (3) is based on its economic growth (3.1) and its overall wealth per head (3.2) (based on its gross domestic product [GDP]; see e.g., van der Wurff, Bakker, & Picard, 2008, on the impact of GDP on advertising revenues).

The general economic role of media within the economy (2.4) in terms of their contribution to the overall GDP is interpreted here as the “maturity” of a country’s media economy (operationalized as the sum of all national media industries). Whereby “media industries” are broadly understood as the set of companies involved in developing, producing, and distributing content that informs, entertains, and/or persuades (Lavine & Wackman, 1988). Unlike some other authors, who focus on traditional media, this study also considers purely digital media, such as the Internet and video games here, in line with its sources for media industries data.

The absolute annual total revenue values as well as their four constituents (print advertising, print circulation, digital advertising, and digital circulation) and the overall revenues of all media industries together were taken from a compilation of “media and entertainment industries” data from 2018 published yearly by the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC for short). The most recent data were published in mid-2018 for 2016 revenues. More recent and future values contained in PWC 2018 are based on forecasts. As the applied forecasting methods are not fully disclosed, the data could not be used as a basis here. However, PWC data for newspapers’ revenues show less fluctuations over time than revenue data given by the WAN-IFRA. The former data set is also available for more of the larger economies and shows fewer missing values for individual years. For all PWC data, compound annual growth rates (abbreviated as CAGRs in the following) as well as the average shares of the four parts of newspaper revenues and the ratio of newspapers’ to all medias’ revenues were computed for the overall period of 5 years (the CAGR then represents the geometric average of the four annual growth rates). To complete the market-related indicators, this study took data for audience reach or readership respectively from WAN-IFRA (2017c) and for Internet penetration from the World Bank (2018). Related to media systems, data were compiled on freedom of the press from Reporters Without Borders (2018) and Freedom House (2018) (to decide later for the more significant one in the model—if being a significant driver at all) and for general human development, the Human Development Index (HDI), which has a strong emphasis on the level of education (see variable 2.2) and was last published in 2018 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The general economic role of media within the economy was computed on the basis of total media revenues by PWC (2018) (see above) and the GDP as given by the World Bank (2018). From the latter source, growths of GDP and GDP per head at purchasing power parity (PPP) were derived to cover the required data for a national economy.

Apart from newspaper reach, which was documented for only 37 countries (WAN-IFRA, 2017c) and HDI (UNDP, 2018) that does not include Taiwan, full data were compiled for the 52 countries included in the PWC sample on media industries (see Table A2 in the appendix for a summary of key variables). PWC data (2018) on newspaper industries were scrutinized for possible variations in reporting systems that would show up as discontinuous changes from year to year that were not observed. Furthermore, in less than 5 singular years of the whole sample were “spikes” or “drops” of more than 20% observed occurring in single countries, which were smoothed by interpolation between the values of adjacent years. On these grounds, we conclude a sufficient data quality for the following analyses.

Findings

To answer RQs and to set the context for the subsequent sections, how digital transformation and its related revenue contributions have proceeded on a global scale should first be elaborated: Over the last 5 years, global newspaper revenues shrank by –1.9% (CAGR) with a recently (2015-2016) further decreased rate of –3.2%. Although the latter phenomenon may be due to a lower GDP growth rate (see Figure 1A), it could also indicate a progressive decline of newspapers’ total revenues in the future. At the same time, digital revenues of publishers rose by +11.0% (CAGR). While these digital revenues are still dominated by advertising (Figure 1B), the growth of digital circulation revenues is gaining momentum. However, at least for the time being, digital gains do not, by far, compensate losses in print. A widespread measure to mitigate the latter seems to be an increase of print circulation revenues, most probably driven rather by higher copy prices, as print audience reach overall is declining (WAN-IFRA, 2017c).

Figure 1

Global Dynamics of Digital Transformation in Newspaper Publishing: (A) Development of Newspaper Revenues and GDP Growth and (B) Share of Digital and Print Revenues

Overall, newspapers’ digital revenues grew +13.2% faster than their combined revenues (which are negative for most countries; see also Table A2 in the appendix) and the latter grew by –8.2% slower than all media revenues (with an average of +6.8%) of a country together (see below). However, though a limiting factor, the combined media industries’ growth is still surpassing GDP’s growth (0.4%) by +6.5%.

With our second research question (RQ2), we address to what extent national characteristics shape the growth of total newspaper revenues. The current situation of newspaper publishing in a specific country and its future prospects potentially depend on a number of different, interacting developments. A multivariate linear regression analysis with total newspaper revenues’ growth rate (CAGR from 2012 to 2016) as dependent variable and all other 11 variables (see above) as independent ones leads to an ideal fit with three significant contributions (see Table 1).

Table 1

Multivariate Linear Regression Modeling of Total Newspaper Revenues’ Growth

Independent variables	Regression coefficient	Standardized coefficient	T	p
Total media growth (%)	0.368	0.548	4.6	<.01
Internet penetration (%)	−0.132	−1.89	−6.0	<.01
Newspaper reach (%)	0.085	0.81	2.6	<.02

Note. n = 36, R² = .76, F = 36.5, p < .001.

Source. Own calculations based on annual absolute values from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2018), WAN-IFRA (2017c), and the World Bank (2018).

Accordingly, 76% of variance in newspaper growth in a global perspective can be explained by the overall media growth within a country, the level of Internet penetration, and last but not least by newspaper reach. While the latter and the general prosperity of a country’s media industries have a positive impact, Internet penetration on average does reduce overall growth of newspaper revenues.

In this multivariate linear regression modeling, the choice of independent variables was carried out by considering in each step one addition based on an F-test. In such a forward selection, the variable (if any) is always added, the inclusion of which gives the most statistically significant improvement of the fit. This process is repeated until no additional variable improves the model to a statistically significant extent. The applied method derives the most parsimonious model by statistical means. It also accounts for the various correlations the independent variables are expected to exhibit among each other (not only with the dependent variable). GDP growth, for example, is related to the level of human development as well as to freedom of the press. But the method systematically highlights the most influential variables and excludes all others that only indirectly also affect the dependent variable.

The third step of the analysis (RQ3) is deriving the relation of the level of digital transformation to the overall prosperity of newspaper publishing in international comparison. Quite expectedly, the share of digital revenues as a percentage of all newspaper revenues, taken as a measure of the level of digital transformation of the newspaper industry within a country, depends on the general level of Internet penetration (Figure 2A). However, a nonlinear relationship with higher penetration leading to a disproportionately higher share of digital revenues (visualized by a quadratic fit in the diagram) also emerges.

Figure 2

Impact of Specific Patterns of Media Usage on the Level of Digital Transformation: (A) Share of Digital Revenues (%, Average 2012-2016) and (B) Share of Digital Revenues (%, Average 2012-2016)

The influence of newspaper reach on achieved levels of digital transformation is even more complex. Low as well as relatively high values of newspaper reach seem to inhibit the development of digital offerings (Figure 2B). Most advanced in terms of digital transformation are countries with intermediate levels of newspaper reach. This can be interpreted as follows: A small reach is not an encouraging factor for investment in digitalization, as, on the contrary, a high reach fosters anxiety of “cannibalization.” In countries with a high reach, newspaper publishers have indeed a lot to lose (Germany, Switzerland, and Japan are examples for this pattern in Figure 2B at the lower right).

It comes as no surprise that the level of digital transformation in newspaper publishing is substantially correlated with total newspaper revenues’ growth (Figure 3A)—albeit indirectly via the variables derived in the model above. Only a few countries, mostly developing and emerging economies, exhibit overall revenue growth. For the more mature economies, apparently, digital transformation is not enough. The impact of a high Internet penetration on newspaper revenues shows up also in a significant correlation of overall newspaper revenues’ growth with digital transformation (as the latter is strongly linked to Internet penetration; see above). The more transformed the average publisher in a country, the lower is the growth rate of the sum of revenues. Only very few Asian countries (China, Singapore, and Taiwan) exhibit a level of digital transformation above the median value paralleled by an overall CAGR above the median for it (but the latter is positive only for Taiwan).

Figure 3

Overall Revenue Growth and Level as Well as Contributions of Digital Revenues: (A) Total Newspaper Growth (% CAGR 2012-2016) and (B) Share of Digital Revenue in Circulation (%, Average 2012-2016)

The data show that not only print revenues are affected negatively in a significant way (p < .05) by a high Internet penetration or level of digital transformation, respectively, but there is also a negative correlation (p < .05) of digital advertising revenues with it. The more digitally advanced a country is, the less publishers can benefit from digital ad revenues. The growth of digital circulation revenues on the contrary appears (still?) unaffected. Although a higher level of digital advertising revenues correlates with a higher level of digital circulation revenues for the average publisher (compared to all circulation revenues; see Figure 3B), countries still exhibit large differences in the way both dimensions of digital transformation are tackled.

Overall, the growth rate of total digital revenues is positively correlated (c = 0.45 with p < .001) with the ratio of both shares, digital circulation to total circulation revenues and digital advertising to total advertising revenues, respectively: The higher the share of digital circulation in comparison to the share of digital advertising, the higher the growth rate of the sum of digital revenues—but with no significant impact on total growth.

Finally, RQ4 brings us back to the overall theme of this article—which clusters of countries can be discerned according to shared strategic challenges for newspaper publishing. Based on the multilinear regression modeling of revenues’ growth (see above), the countries of the sample can be mapped in a diagram exhibiting newspaper reach and Internet penetration along the two axes (Figure 4). Both variables were found as key drivers for growth (in addition to overall media’s growth). The countries thereby cluster into groups that exhibit similar framework conditions and reflect, to some extent, also the types of different media systems (cf. Hallin & Mancini, 2004). The clustering can also be confirmed by formal cluster analysis based on the variables newspaper reach, Internet penetration and total medias’ growth as well as regional criteria for four ambiguous classifications GBR, NLD, SGP, and USA. These geographical considerations are in turn related to GDP per head at PPP.

Figure 4

Differing Framework Conditions for Newspaper Publishing

The countries belonging to the clusters and the latter’s key properties are as follows:

IDN, IND, PAK: Developing media economies with lower middle income (GDP per head at PPP) and comparatively low (but catching up fast) overall media usage.

BRA, CHN, MEX, RUS, TUR, ZAF: Emerging big media economies with below-average Internet penetration and very diverse though below average newspaper reach.

CZE, ESP, HUN, ITA, POL, POR: Aspiring (mostly smaller) European media economies with intermediate Internet penetration and slightly below-average newspaper reach.

CHL, ISR, MYS, SAU, SGP: Economically strong non-European newspaper power houses with intermediate Internet penetration and high newspaper reach.

AUS, CAN, IRL, FRA, GBR, NZL, USA: Very mature Anglo-Saxon and French speaking media economies with high Internet penetration and intermediate newspaper reach.

AUT, CHE, DNK, FIN, GER, JPN, NLD, NOR, SWE: Global newspaper strongholds in very mature (mostly Scandinavian and German speaking) media economies with high Internet penetration and newspaper reach; Japan is an exceptional case here which would deserve to be treated as a case in its own right.

Despite many differences across the whole data set, there are significant shared patterns within these clusters of countries. They include the average freedom of the press within a cluster and growth rates of GDP as well the discerned sources of newspaper revenues and their contribution (see Table 2 for a summary of average values per cluster). Furthermore, relationships of variables also are distinctive for the clusters (e.g., resulting correlations and regression coefficients), as is the spread of values for certain variables (see also Table 2 for standard deviations).

Table 2

Cluster Averages or CAGR Respectively (2012-2016) for Selected Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Newspaper reach (%)	16.9 ± 10.1	26.9 ± 11.3	35.8 ± 3.5	60.6 ± 3.6	45.4 ± 6.2	65.1 ± 9.8
Internet penetration (%)	17.8 ± 3.7	53.4 ± 8.1	69.8 ± 6.6	69.3 ± 7.4	83.5 ± 5.4	90.0 ± 4.6
GDP p.c. (1,000 USD)	7.0 ± 3.1	18.0 ± 5.3	30.3 ± 4.6	43.7 ± 25.1	45.5 ± 7.8	49.4 ± 8.1
Press freedom (score)	50.7 ± 12.6	61.8 ± 19.6	26.7 ± 7.1	55.4 ± 23.8	20.2 ± 2.7	14.4 ± 5.4
GDP growth (%)	3.8 ± 3.0	−3.5 ± 7.1	−1.5 ± 0.8	−0.1 ± 3.3	0.1 ± 4.7	−2.3 ± 2.5
Total media growth (%)	14.1 ± 4.3	10.6 ± 2.2	4.1 ± 1.7	8.2 ± 3.8	4.8 ± 1.1	3.2 ± 0.7
Medias’ share in GDP (%)	1.2 ± 0.1	1.6 ± 0.6	2.1 ± 0.5	1.6 ± 0.4	2.6 ± 0.6	2.4 ± 0.3
Total newspaper growth (%)	3.6 ± 1.7	0.3 ± 3.5	−5.9 ± 2.2	−0.5 ± 4.3	−6.0 ± 2.6	−4.8 ± 2.3
Newspaper digital growth (%)	39.9 ± 18.7	20.3 ± 6.3	17.3 ± 9.2	25.6 ± 15.5	10.5 ± 3.6	14.5 ± 5.8
Share of total digital revenue (%)	2.2 ± 1.4	3.4 ± 1.2	6.4 ± 1.5	3.7 ± 2.6	11.8 ± 3.3	6.8 ± 2.1
Share of digital circulation revenue (%)	1.7 ± 0.4	1.5 ± 0.5	4.3 ± 3.1	3.2 ± 2.7	6.3 ± 4.0	3.1 ± 1.9
Share of digital advertising revenue (%)	2.4 ± 1.9	5.7 ± 2.5	9.5 ± 3.5	4.0 ± 3.1	15.9 ± 4.1	11.2 ± 4.2

Note. CAGR = compound annual growth rate; GDP = gross domestic product.

Source. Own calculations of averaged percentages based on annual data from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2018), WAN-IFRA (2017c), the World Bank (2018), and Freedom House (2018).

Media’s share in GDP appears to be strongly correlated with the economic wealth of a country (see also Kolo, 2015) and—if low—is a driver for media’s growth (exhibiting a momentum for catching up to levels of more developed economies; as less developed countries grow faster). Consequently, countries of cluster 1 experience superior growth in terms of GDP, total media revenues as well as newspapers’ combined and digital-only revenues. Insofar, they cannot be compared to countries with higher GDP per head.

This catch-up race also explains that, in terms of growth, digital newspaper revenues surpass in this cluster the combined newspaper revenues by 36.3 percentage points (by far more than in all other clusters). The higher this difference, the more likely the newspapers’ digital ventures are surpassed by pure and/or new digital players going for these growth opportunities. The next highest difference in these growth rates can be observed in cluster 4 (the economically strong non-European newspaper power houses), which also shows a superior ratio of the shares of digital circulation and digital advertising revenues as well as the best ratio of total newspaper growth and the level of newspapers’ digital transformation. Within this cluster are the few countries that still experience overall total newspaper revenues growth above the global median and at the same time embracing digitalisation above the median value (see also Figure 3A).

An indication (p approximately at 0.1) for a positive correlation of the growth of digital revenues with the growth of newspaper revenues in total and also for a correlation of the freedom of the press with the former can be observed only for cluster 2 (emerging big media economies).

Conclusions, Limitations, and Outlook

Coming back to the four specific research questions, first, the digital transformation of newspaper industries had reached a meager 11% in 2016, with digital revenues growing slower in absolute terms than print is declining and newspapers’ total revenues shrinking at a quite progressive rate. With this global development, one can hardly state that the transformation process is well under way and reaping rewards. Second, concerning the drivers of overall growth, this is framed above all by the total growth of media in a country, followed by newspaper reach with a positive impact and Internet penetration with a negative impact. Quite remarkably, more than three quarters of the variance is explained with these variables and none of the other eight considered independent variables contributes to a further explanation of newspapers’ revenue growth as dependent one. Third, though the level of digital transformation of the newspaper industry within a country depends first of all on the general level of Internet penetration (with higher penetration leading to a disproportionately higher share of digital revenues), substantial differences exist even among countries with Internet usage at a similar level. Nevertheless, for most countries, a more advanced transformation of the newspaper industry did not help publishers to improve their situation—mostly on the contrary. Fourth, data confirm that the potential for growth of the print business as well as for digital revenues differs largely in an international perspective and indeed suggests a discussion of newspapers’ strategic challenges along specific clusters. Within the clusters that we could significantly derive from variables characterizing a publisher’s context of operation also peculiar patterns appear that were invisible for the global set.

In less industrialized countries, publishers still benefit from a general catch-up of the news media’s role in terms of its share of the GDP (cf. Kolo, 2015). Cross-media or digital editorial activities, respectively, are increasingly widespread, but the achieved levels differ largely, even among countries of equal economic development (particularly in “newspaper countries” fear of cannibalization was and is an impediment). The publishing business in newly industrialized and emerging economies appears most vulnerable in being bypassed by online pure players—particularly when freedom of the press is low. Here, safeguarding trust in quality journalism could be an essential requirement to keep up with new players in digital news media and social media rumor. The clusters that we derived by an econometric methodology correspond to Hallin and Mancini’s (2004): Cluster 6 overlaps with their Northern Europe/Democratic Corporatist group, cluster 5 contains the countries of their North Atlantic Liberal, and cluster 3 comprises several countries of their Southern Europe/Polarized Pluralist group. Unfortunately, Hallin and Mancini do not cover many non-European or developing economies. On the contrary, an analysis of our clusters along a broader set of system-related variables may shed further light on the relation of economic characteristics as derived in this study with the predominantly politically founded clusters by Hallin and Mancini.

In any case, a publishing business, sustainable also in the long run, will depend on achieving substantial growth beyond editorial content including the reinvention or reinterpretation of some important additional functions of newspapers of better times in a digital context (e.g., market place, broker, mediator, or trust center on a national but also the local level), without jeopardizing quality journalism. However, for many publishers, this would require anticipating in a more encompassing way their rather implicit resources and strengthening their dynamic capabilities (cf. Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997).

Obviously, this study has limitations concerning the scope and the validity of the results with the regarded peculiar phase of transformation. Data on media industries for selected countries are also of different quality. But although data may include errors in all of the countries (as sampling on the company level is often incomplete and is done in more or less different ways), we believe that on the basis of a set of 52 countries, analyzed over a time span of 5 years, we compensate for this by statistical means (when the errors are assumed uncorrelated). Similarly, although the derived model is statistically significant, the consideration of additional factors impacting on revenue growth and/or a structural equation approach could lead to an ever further improvement of the fit. In addition, the study was conducted only on an aggregate, nationwide level, and no (possibly outstanding) individual players per country were considered (as it was always averaged). We acknowledge that even within a country, strategic challenges may be perceived in various ways (cf. Brüggemann et al., 2012; WAN-IFRA, 2017b), and publishers react differently by driving digital transformation of their own companies, along with organizational innovations (e.g., Achtenhagen & Raviola, 2009; Küng, 2017), innovations of their print or digital editorial offerings (e.g., Christensen et al., 2012; Nel, 2010; WAN-IFRA, 2017a), and developing business beyond editorial content (Kolo et al., 2018).

Hence, further research should be devoted to remarkable cases of specific publishers from countries of a peculiar position in its cluster to better understand management decisions that have led to the effects observed. Different collective behavior of publishers per country occurs in making use of similar room for maneuver provided by the framework conditions for a specific cluster based on shared narratives of more or less successful strategies (cf. Brüggemann et al., 2015). Beyond a systematic view of business that goes beyond editorial content lies another strand of research that seems to be rewarding: becoming able to advise publishers in overcoming the situation that even though digitalization is inevitable and essential, it will most probably never compensate for losses in print. For such an exploration of an entirely new business, there are plenty of opportunities that are only sporadically covered so far in an international perspective.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A2

List of Selected Variables for All Countries With Complete Date in the Sample

Country	Internet penetration (%), average 2012-2016	Newspaper reach (%), average 2012-2016	Newspaper growth (%), 2012-2016	Share of newspapers’ digital rev. (%), average 2012-2016	Share of digital rev. within circulation (%), av. 2012-2016	Share of digital rev. within advertising (%), av. 2012-2016	Total media growth (%), CAGR 2012-2016	GDP growth (%), CAGR 2012-2016	GDP per head (PPP) (USD), average 2012-2016	Press freedom (score), average 2012-2016
ARG	64.2	n.a.	5.9	2.8	4.2	2.6	15.6	0.0	20.0	50.8
AUS	83.9	42.6	−9.2	15.9	8.0	20.6	6.0	−5.9	45.4	21.8
AUT	82.0	69.2	−2.3	7.9	1.6	11.1	2.8	−1.0	48.7	21.6
BEL	83.9	n.a.	−2.3	8.3	2.5	11.1	2.7	−1.5	44.5	11.0
BRA	54.8	21.7	1.9	3.1	2.1	4.7	8.7	−7.6	15.7	45.2
CAN	86.8	47.0	−6.1	11.4	1.8	14.9	4.8	−4.2	44.1	18.8
CHL	60.9	65.8	4.9	3.4	6.6	2.6	13.0	−1.8	22.6	30.6
CHN	47.9	39.8	−1.9	5.5	1.3	9.4	13.7	6.9	13.4	85.0
COL	53.5	n.a.	1.3	2.8	3.3	2.3	10.2	−6.5	13.2	54.6
CZE	77.0	34.4	−3.2	5.1	1.9	6.5	5.2	−1.5	32.0	20.0
DNK	95.2	54.8	−5.7	7.6	2.8	12.4	3.6	−1.6	47.4	12.0
EGY	33.8	n.a.	1.6	0.5	0.1	1.7	13.4	4.8	10.5	75.0
FIN	90.8	65.7	−7.0	9.4	2.0	20.0	2.3	−1.8	41.8	10.8
FRA	83.5	47.2	−2.3	9.6	6.9	16.3	3.7	−2.1	39.8	23.8
GER	86.0	66.1	−2.4	4.6	2.7	7.4	2.5	−0.5	46.5	17.8
GRE	62.8	n.a.	−10.1	6.7	9.1	6.5	1.5	−5.9	26.3	49.5
HKO	79.9	n.a.	−1.5	3.8	2.4	4.5	5.3	5.1	55.2	40.0
HUN	74.2	38.7	−3.4	4.0	1.9	6.5	4.1	−0.3	25.2	36.8
IND	20.8	28.3	4.5	3.7	1.9	4.5	11.3	5.5	5.7	39.0
IDN	18.8	13.3	4.7	0.9	1.2	0.8	19.0	0.4	10.5	49.0
IRL	80.0	53.7	−7.8	8.0	3.1	14.3	3.4	7.8	57.4	16.2
ISR	74.6	58.8	−6.9	6.1	1.6	7.8	3.8	5.4	34.6	30.6
ITA	60.6	36.8	−6.1	7.6	5.5	11.2	1.9	−2.7	36.7	31.8
JPN	88.2	83.2	−2.2	3.1	1.5	6.7	3.9	−5.5	39.6	24.4
KEN	37.2	n.a.	4.9	3.3	3.8	3.1	18.4	8.8	2.9	57.5
MYS	67.3	56.5	1.4	1.4	2.1	1.3	7.5	−1.5	25.4	64.6
MEX	48.9	36.8	3.2	2.2	2.1	2.6	8.9	−3.1	16.9	62.2
NLD	92.7	52.5	−6.4	8.7	7.3	12.5	2.4	−1.6	48.8	11.0
NZL	85.3	35.1	−6.1	8.5	5.6	10.2	4.6	1.2	36.5	18.0
NIG	37.3	n.a.	−0.8	2.2	1.9	2.8	18.1	−3.0	5.8	52.0
NOR	96.0	58.6	−6.5	8.2	4.1	12.4	4.0	−7.6	63.8	9.8
PAK	13.6	9.2	1.6	2.0	2.0	2.1	12.0	5.6	4.8	64.0
PER	40.8	n.a.	1.5	1.9	2.4	1.3	13.5	−0.1	12.1	46.5
PHI	41.8	n.a.	−0.7	2.0	1.3	3.8	10.1	5.1	6.9	44.0
POL	66.6	39.0	−7.4	7.0	5.6	12.6	3.0	−1.5	25.6	26.4
POR	65.2	36.6	−8.8	7.6	9.5	6.3	6.8	−1.3	28.6	18.0
ROU	53.0	14.6	−5.2	9.2	9.1	7.9	7.4	2.2	20.8	40.8
RUS	69.1	8.7	−4.7	2.3	1.3	7.1	8.7	−12.3	25.5	81.6
SAU	64.5	62.4	−1.8	1.0	0.3	1.4	11.3	−3.1	52.6	84.0
SGP	79.0	59.6	−0.3	6.6	5.6	6.8	5.7	0.7	83.4	67.0
ZAF	48.5	29.8	−1.2	3.0	0.8	3.9	11.5	−7.1	12.9	35.0
KOR	86.5	n.a.	−2.4	7.1	3.1	10.1	6.6	3.6	34.0	32.2
ESP	75.4	29.6	−6.3	7.3	1.6	14.1	3.4	−1.9	33.9	27.0
SWE	92.1	60.4	−7.8	7.0	4.3	11.6	3.8	−1.4	46.7	10.2
CHE	87.1	75.1	−3.1	4.8	1.9	6.5	3.3	0.1	61.5	12.4
TWA	77.1	n.a.	0.3	5.5	3.2	7.9	6.1	n.a.	n.a.	26.5
THA	35.4	n.a.	0.5	1.6	1.8	1.4	4.7	0.6	15.8	67.6
TUR	50.9	24.6	4.7	4.1	1.4	6.6	12.3	2.3	23.4	61.8
GBR	91.1	50.9	−7.4	13.2	14.0	13.0	5.1	0.0	40.4	22.8
USA	73.9	41.6	−2.9	15.7	4.7	21.7	6.1	3.6	54.6	20.0
VEN	56.6	n.a.	n.a.	1.9	2.0	1.0	n.a.	n.a.	17.8	78.2
VIE	46.2	n.a.	1.4	4.2	4.4	2.7	14.2	7.1	5.6	85.5

Note. CAGR = compound annual growth rate; GDP = gross domestic product; PPP = purchasing power parity; n.a. = not available.

Source. Own calculations on the basis of raw data from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2018), the World Bank (2018), WAN-IFRA (2017c), and Freedom House (2018).

ORCID iD

Castulus Kolo

References

Achtenhagen

Raviola

(2009). Balancing tensions during convergence: Duality management in a newspaper company. International Journal on Media Management, 8, 134-145.

Anderson

S. P.

Gabszewicz

J. J.

(2006). The media and advertising: A tale of two-sided markets. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 1, 567-614. doi:10.1016/S1574-0676(06)01018-0

Bechmann

Bilgrav-Nielsen

Korsgaard Jensen

A.-L.

(2016). Data as a revenue model. Sharewall as a payment method and editorial algorithm in the news industry. Nordicom Information, 38, 76-82.

Björkroth

Grönlund

(2018). Competitive pressure and profitability of newspaper publishing in 12 European countries. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15, 254-277. doi:10.1080/16522354.2018.1527623

Brüggemann

Esser

Humprecht

(2012). The strategic repertoire of publishers in the media crisis: The “Five C” scheme in Germany. Journalism Studies, 13, 742-752.

Brüggemann

Humprecht

Kleis Nielsen

Karppinen

Cornia

Esser

(2015). Framing the newspaper crisis. Journalism Studies, 17, 533-551. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1006871

Casero-Ripollés

Izquierdo-Castillo

(2013). Between decline and a new online business model: The case of the Spanish newspaper industry. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10, 63-78.

Cawley

(2017). Johnston Press and the crisis in Ireland’s local newspaper industry, 2005–2014. Journalism, 18, 1163-1183.

Cestino

Berndt

(2017). Institutional limits to service dominant logic and servitisation in innovation efforts in newspapers. Journal of Media Business Studies, 14, 188-216. doi:10.1080/16522354.2018.1445163

10.

Chamberlain

(2018). Why local democracy needs a healthy local media. Political Quarterly, 89, 719-721.

11.

Christensen

C. M.

Skok

Allworth

(2012). Breaking news: Mastering the art of disruptive innovation in journalism. Nieman Reports, 66(3), 6-20. Retrieved from https://niemanreports.org/articles/breaking-news/

12.

Chyi

H. I.

Lasorsa

D. L.

(2002). An explorative study on the market relation between online and print newspapers. Journal of Media Economics, 15, 91-106.

13.

Chyi

H. I.

Sylvie

(1998). Competing with whom? Where? And how? A structural analysis of the electronic newspaper market. Journal of Media Economics, 11(2), 1-18.

14.

Chyi

H. I.

Tenenboim

(2017). Reality check. Multiplatform newspaper readership in the United States, 2007–2015. Journalism Practice, 11, 798-819.

15.

Cook

J. E.

Attari

S. Z.

(2012). Paying for what was free: Lessons from the New York Times paywall. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 1-6. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0251

16.

Dekavalla

(2015). The Scottish newspaper industry in the digital era. Media, Culture & Society, 37, 107-114.

17.

Doyle

(2013). Re-invention and survival: Newspapers in the era of digital multiplatform delivery. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10(4), 1-20.

18.

Doyle

(2015). Multi-platform media and the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Journal of Media Business Studies, 12, 49-65.

19.

Eveland

W. P.

Jr. Scheufele

D. A.

(2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237.

20.

Evens

Raats

von Rimscha

M. B.

(2017). Business model innovation in news media organisations—2018 special issue of the European Media Management Association (emma). Journal of Media Business Studies, 14, 167-172. doi:10.1080/16522354.2018.1445164

21.

Fan

(2013). Ownership consolidation and product characteristics: A study of the US daily newspaper market. American Economic Review, 103, 1598-1628.

22.

Fletcher

Nielsen

R. K.

(2017). Paying for online news. Digital Journalism, 5, 1173-1191.

23.

Freedom House. (2018). Freedom of the press ratings. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-press

24.

Geidner

D’Arcy

(2015). The effects of micropayments on online news story selection and engagement. New Media & Society, 17, 611-628.

25.

Gershon

R. A.

(2013). Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three perspectives on the future of computer tablets and news delivery. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10, 41-61. doi:10.1080/16522354.2013.11073559

26.

Goyanes

Dürrenberg

(2014). A taxonomy of newspapers based on multi-platform and paid content strategies: Evidences from Spain. International Journal on Media Management, 16, 27-45.

27.

Greene

(2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

28.

Grove

A. S.

(1996). Only the paranoid survive. New York, NY: Random House.

29.

Habermas

(2007, May 16). How to save the quality press? (Originally published in Süddeutsche Zeitung). Retrieved from http://www.signandsight.com/features/1349.html

30.

Hallin

D. C.

Mancini

(2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Hasenpusch

T. C.

Baumann

(2017). Strategic media venturing: Corporate venture capital approaches of TIME incumbents. International Journal on Media Management, 19, 77-100.

32.

Holm

Günzel

Ulhøi

(2013). Openness in innovation and business models: Lessons from the newspaper industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 61, 324-348.

33.

Holm

A. B.

(2016). Could freemium models work for legacy newspapers? Nordicom Information, 38, 83-87.

34.

Ibrus

Scolari

C. A.

(Eds.). (2012). Crossmedia innovations: Texts, markets, institutions. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

35.

Ihlström

Palmer

(2002). Revenues for online newspapers: Owner and user perceptions. Electronic Markets, 12, 228-236.

36.

Edge

(2019). Are UK newspapers really dying? A financial analysis of newspaper publishing companies. Journal of Media Business Studies, 16, 19-39. doi:10.1080/16522354.2018.1555686

37.

Eriksson

Åkesson

Svensson

Fredberg

(2007). Introducing the E-newspaper: Identifying initial target groups. Journal of Media Business Studies, 4(3), 41-62. doi:10.1080/16522354.2007.11073455

38.

Isyaku

Latiff

M. N.

Nasidi

Q. Y.

(2018). The survival of Nigerian newspapers in digital age of communication. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 8, 631-637.

39.

Jeong

S. H.

Chyi

H. I.

(2014). Will social media save newspapers? Examining the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter as news platforms. Journalism Practice, 8, 1-17.

40.

Karimi

Walter

(2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Planning, 49, 342-360. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.004

41.

Kolo

(2015). The intricate relationship of media business and economic development. Austral Comunicacion, 4, 41-64. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/14533137/Austral_Comunicaci%C3%B3n_-_Vol_4_No_1_Junio_de_2015

42.

Kolo

(2016). A long-term view on the business model of newspaper publishing: International comparison and quantitative modelling for Germany as case in point. Westminster Papers in Culture and Communication, 11, 1-20. doi:10.16997/wpcc.217

43.

Kolo

Kunz

Grasemann

(in press). Media business models in Germany. In Scholz

Wildman

(Eds.), Media business models. Lisbon, Portugal: Media XXI.

44.

Kolo

Vogt

(2004). Traditional media and their internet spin-offs: An explorative study on key levers for online success and the impact of offline reach. International Journal on Media Management, 6, 23-35. doi:10.1080/14241277.2004.9669379

45.

Kolo

Weichert

(2014). Germany: Evaluating alternatives to finance quality journalism. In Murschetz

(Ed.), State aid for newspapers: Theories, cases, actions (pp. 215-235). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

46.

Kuhn

(2011). The media in contemporary France. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

47.

Küng

(2015). Innovators in digital news. London, England: I.B. Taurus.

48.

Küng

(2017). Going digital: A roadmap for organisational transformation (Digital News Project 2017). Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/Going%20Digital.pdf

49.

Kunz

R. E.

Mütterlein

Walton

(2017). Organizational choices and venturing modes: An analysis of corporate venture capital activities in legacy media. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4, 26-43. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5617/jmi.v4i1.2429

50.

Ladson

Lee

A. M.

(2017). Persuading to pay: Exploring the what and why in crowdfunded journalism. International Journal on Media Management, 19, 144-163.

51.

Lavine

J. M.

Wackman

D. B.

(1988). Managing media organizations: Effective leadership of the media. New York, NY: Longman.

52.

Lehtisaari

Karppinen

Harjuniemi

Grönlund

Lindén

C.-G.

Nieminen

Viljakainen

(2012). Media convergence and business models: Responses of Finnish daily newspapers (Media and Communication Studies Research Reports; Vol. 4/2012). Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/crc/Julkaisut/Media_Convergence.pdf

53.

Magretta

(2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92.

54.

McChesney

Pickard

(2011). Will the last reporter please turn out the lights: The collapse of journalism and what can be done to fix it. New York, NY: New Press.

55.

Merritt

Jr. (2005). Knightfall: Knight Ridder and how the erosion of newspaper journalism is putting democracy at risk. New York, NY: AMACOM, a division of American Management Association.

56.

Murschetz

(Ed.). (2014). State aid for newspapers: Theories, cases, actions. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

57.

Myllylahti

(2017). What content is worth locking behind a paywall? Digital news commodification in leading Australasian financial newspapers. Digital Journalism, 5, 460-471.

58.

Nel

(2010). Where else is the money? A study of innovation in online business models at newspapers in Britain’s 66 cities. Journalism Practice, 4, 360-372. doi:10.1080/17512781003642964

59.

Newman

(2017). Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2017. Digital News Project. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-04/Journalism,%20Media%20and%20Technology%20Trends%20and%20Predictions%202017.pdf

60.

Nielsen

R. K.

Ganter

S. A.

(2017). Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms. New Media & Society, 20, 1600-1617.

61.

Olsen

R. K.

Solvoll

M. K.

(2018). Reinventing the business model for local newspapers by building walls. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15, 24-41. doi:10.1080/16522354.2018.1445160

62.

O’Reilly

(1996). Publishing models for internet commerce. Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 79-86.

63.

Outing

(2000). Newspapers and new media: The digital awakening of the newspaper industry. Washington, DC: GAFT Press.

64.

Picard

R. G.

(2000). Changing business models of online content services: Their implications for multimedia and other content producers. International Journal on Media Management, 2, 60-68.

65.

Picard

R. G.

(2008). Shifts in newspaper advertising expenditures and their implications for the future of newspapers. Journalism Studies, 9, 704-716.

66.

Picard

R. G.

(2017). The economics of journalism and news provision. In Vos

(Ed.), Handbook of communication science: Journalism (pp. 281-296). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

67.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2018). Global entertainment and media outlook 2017-2021. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.in/industries/entertainment-and-media/global-entertainment-and-media-outlook-2017-2021.html

68.

Reporters Without Borders. (2018). World press freedom index. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/fr/classement

69.

Rothmann

Koch

(2014). Creativity in strategic lock-ins: The newspaper industry and the digital revolution. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 66, 66-83.

70.

Samuelson

P. A.

Nordhaus

W. D.

(2004). Economics (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

71.

Schlesinger

Doyle

(2014). From organizational crisis to multi-platform salvation? Creative destruction and the recomposition of news media. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 16, 305-323. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/1464884914530223

72.

Siles

Boczkowski

(2012). Making sense of the newspaper crisis: A critical assessment of existing research and an agenda for future work. New Media & Society, 14, 1375-1394.

73.

Teece

Pisano

Shuen

(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.

74.

Tennant

J. I.

(2014). Free newspapers in the United States: Alive and kicking. International Journal on Media Management, 16, 105-121. doi:10.1080/14241277.2014.974244

75.

Thurman

Picard

R. G.

Myllylahti

Krumsvik

A. H.

(2018). On digital distributions failure to solve newspapers’ existential crisis. Symptoms, causes, consequences, and remedies. In Eldridge

II Franklin

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of developments in digital journalism studies (pp. 172-185). London, England: Routledge.

76.

United Nations Development Programme. (2018). International human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

77.

van der Wurff

Bakker

Picard

R. G

. (2008). Economic growth and advertising expenditures in different media in different countries. Journal of Media Economics, 21, 28-52.

78.

van Dijk

J. A. G. M

. (2002). A framework for digital divide research. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 12(1-2). Retrieved from https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6849188/Volume+12+Numbers+1.pdf

79.

van Kranenburg

Ziggers

. (2012). Strategic inflection point and transformation of media companies. In Kolo

Döbler

Rademacher

(Eds.), Wertschöpfung durch Medien im Wandel (pp. 21-31). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

80.

Villi

Hayashi

(2017). The mission is to keep this industry intact: Digital transition in the Japanese newspaper industry. Journalism Studies, 18, 960-977.

81.

Virta

Nando

(2017). Ambidextrous tensions: Dynamics of creative work in the media innovation process. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4, 44-59.

82.

Vukanovic

(2011). New media business models in social and web media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 8(3), 51-67. doi:10.1080/16522354.2011.11073526

83.

WAN-IFRA. (2017a). Best practice in digital media. Frankfurt, Germany: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wan-ifra.org/showcases/new-report-best-practice-in-digital-media

84.

WAN-IFRA. (2017b). World news publishers outlook 2017. Frankfurt, Germany: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2017/09/13/world-news-publishers-outlook-2017

85.

WAN-IFRA. (2017c). World Press Trends 2017. Frankfurt, Germany: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2017/10/10/world-press-trends-2017

86.

WAN-IFRA. (2018). World Press Trends 2018. Frankfurt, Germany: Author. Retrieved from http://www.wan-ifra.org/reports/2018/09/29/world-press-trends-2018

87.

Who killed the newspaper?. (2006, August 24). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/7830218

88.

Whoriskey

(2008, June 5). Microsoft’s Ballmer on Yahoo and the future. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403770.html

89.

Wikström

Ellonen

H.-K.

(2012). The impact of social media features on print media firms’ online business models. Journal of Media Business Studies, 9, 63-80.

90.

Wirtz

Daiser

(2017). Business model innovation: An integrative conceptual framework. Journal of Business Models, 5, 14-34.

91.

The World Bank. (Ed.). (2018). World Bank indicators. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator