Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



What Buffett Doesn't Get About Newspapers

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) (NYSE: BRK-B  ) CEO Warren Buffett's decision to buy a hoard of newspapers from Media General seems like a strange one. The world's foremost investor has always been wary of technology, but now he's diving into an industry that's been turned upside down by the Internet.

Almost the entire newspaper industry is on life support, and Media General is no different. The enterprise has lost money in each of its last four quarters and hasn't had a profitable 12-month period since 2007.

Buffett's love of newspapers is well-documented, and Berkshire has been a longtime investor in the Washington Post (NYSE: WPO  ) , which has continued to put up profits by diversifying into education as the media segment has languished. In a letter to Berkshire's media group, Buffett discussed his love for the daily rag, saying he still reads five of them every day. His bet centers around his belief that newspapers "that intensively cover their communities will have a good future," and he calls on his employees to make those papers "indispensable." His core argument for investing in local papers is that they have stronger communities than larger cities because of stable populations. Therefore, the residents are more interested in local news.

But there's a catch
Buffett is right when he pinpoints the original sin of newspapers in the Internet era as offering free content online. After all, would you pay to visit a restaurant when they deliver for free? But just because his papers start charging readers doesn't mean we're back in glory the days of folio and ink. The technological changes that are transforming media may actually squeeze local papers tighter than major ones. Here, it seems like his nostalgia for the heyday of newspapers is clouding his judgment.

The major threat to newspapers that charge for online content is from free providers such as blogs, community Listservs, and more established free new media sources such as AOL's (NYSE: AOL  ) Huffington Post, not to mention classified ads being siphoned off by websites such as Craigslist, which has drained a key source of revenue for local papers.

Unlike national papers, local news covers events in which volunteers could easily substitute for trained journalists. Do you really need a cub reporter at a high school sports game scribbling notes and snapping pictures when plenty of parents would likely be happy to post a few pictures on Facebook or another website and summarize the game in a paragraph or two? Couldn't a concerned citizen sitting in on a school board accomplish the same thing?

You could argue that the quality of the journalism will decline, but that still poses more of a threat to small local papers. Those publications don't have the networks of reporters in far-flung locations around the world or access to sources that the average citizen wouldn't be able to connect to. Smaller cities and towns may have tighter communities than big cities, but news in small towns often travels simply through gossip. The need for a local newspaper just isn't as urgent as the need for media on a large scale.

In what could be a harbinger for regional newspapers, in many small TV markets the three major local news stations have begun sharing all sorts of resources from office space to video to scripts as they compete for limited advertising revenue. The moves underscore the inherent inefficiency of the newsgathering business. Having dozens of reporters at the same press conference seems like bad business when most of them will write similar stories later. Of course, this serves the interest of competition, but in a declining industry, it's obvious that the herd needs to be thinned.

In his letter, Buffett made it clear that he's only interested in buying newspapers with local monopolies, without a rival newspaper. But newspapers have been rolling back coverage for generations ever since they rolled back the afternoon extras as TV news became the major source of late-breaking information. That one newspaper survived in a given community is a sign that the industry has contracted, not of superiority.

Foolish takeaway
Buffett's assertion that paying for online content is the way for newspapers to thrive may be borne out. At The New York Times (NYSE: NYT  ) , which has struggled to turn a profit in recent years, experiments with a paywall seem to be finally paying off. In just a year, the Times has gained more than 500,000 digital subscribers, or 39% of its weekday print circulation of 1.3 million. Those subscribers helped the New York Times Media Group segment grow circulation revenue by 13% last year, with an estimated 18% contribution to total circulation revenue of $190 million.

Notably, the Times sold a group of smaller regional newspapers last year to focus on its core offering. Morningstar analyst Joscelyn Mackay said at the time, "These newspapers have been a drag on overall results due to heavier reliance on local advertising, which lags national advertising growth." In announcing the sale, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said the decision "will enable The New York Times Company to continue our transformation to a digitally focused, multiplatform media company." That sounds diametrically opposed to Buffett's strategy of looking to local papers as new profit centers.

As the news industry continues to consolidate, it will be the irreplaceable publications that succeed. For local newspapers where the Web is an easy substitute, survival will be difficult.

New media is one area where disruptive innovation has reshaped multiple industries and created new opportunities. Get the new scoop on the newest growth industry, poised to change everything about manufacturing and rock the global supply chain. The innovation is 3-D printing, and if you haven't seen it in action, I highly recommend taking a look at this video. It details how this invention will change the economy, and provides three stock picks that are poised to take off as this fast-growing sector picks up steam. Get the scoop in our new special free report: "The Future is Made in America." Get your free copy now by clicking here.

Fool contributor Jeremy Bowman holds no positions in the companies in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Read/Post Comments (9) | Recommend This Article (3)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2012, at 12:08 PM, DoctorLewis4 wrote:

    What Buffett sees is content - which will increase in value as things shake out. And local news covered by real journalists is vital. Even Woodward & Bernstein started out covering school board meetings. Do you want your doctors starting out with performing major heart surgery or do you want them to learn their craft first?

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2012, at 12:17 PM, TMFKris wrote:

    As a former reporter and editor at a small daily newspaper that had competition I think having professional journalists cover local news is underrated. Maybe any parent can take photographs at a basketball game, but how many can objectively cover a zoning dispute or a school budget proposal? How many would want to if their neighborhood or their kids weren't involved?

    If newspapers do their job right, people will turn to them for news rather than rely on gossip.

    In addition to keeping citizens informed, local newspapers and their beat reporters have the obligation to keep officials honest and open. It isn't that citizens can't do this, it's that they often don't.

    TMFKris -- TMF copy editor

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2012, at 1:38 PM, dstb wrote:

    Buffett clearly invests out of nostalgia which makes no sense to me. I owned Berkshire awhile back but I won't do so again. It's best days are behind it.

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2012, at 8:39 PM, 123spot wrote:

    <i> IIn his letter, Buffett made it clear that he's only interested in buying newspapers with local monopolies, without a rival newspaper. But newspapers have been rolling back coverage for generations ever since they rolled back the afternoon extras as TV news became the major source of late-breaking information. That one newspaper survived in a given community is a sign that the industry has contracted, not of superiority.<I>

    Might it not instead be Darwinian? The fittest survive, good time to buy. In a way, this is a play on demographics. My 80 year old mother read's her "____ Daily Home" , well, daily. Her friends obituaries and her grandchildrens' progress are there, not to mention the Winn-Dixie specials. She thinks cell phones are the "Anti-Christ" ( direct quote) and will not be checking a machine for information about local weather damage last night or the subject of next Sunday's sermon. Mr. Buffett may know her, and a deal when he sees one. Spot

  • Report this Comment On May 30, 2012, at 8:42 PM, 123spot wrote:

    Pardon my iPad corrected punctuation :( .

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 1:47 AM, sliderw wrote:

    Whom would you bet on is the better capital allocator here, Sulzberger or Buffett? Just asking...

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 2:15 AM, matthewluke wrote:

    "After all, would you pay to visit a restaurant when they deliver for free?"

    Well that would depend on the restaurant, wouldn't it? If we're talking about Dominoes or similar delivery-restaurant, yeah, I'd rather eat that Pizza at home using free delivery. But if we're talking about a nice restaurant that I'd want to take a date to, of course I'd rather pay to put some gas in the tank and visit the restaurant.

    That's the same with news.

    Would I pay for the stuff I'd normally see on or similar site? Nope, probably not.

    But would I pay for content on The Wall Street Journal or maybe the Financial Times? Yeah, I might.

    It all depends on what I'm paying for.

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 4:31 PM, TMFHobo wrote:

    Kris, I worked for small local paper once too. I certainly think there's value in what those reporters do but I just think trends are inevitably against them. Advertising has been gobbled up by online sources, and local businesses can now turn to sites like Google, Facebook, or Pandora.

    Newspapers have done innovating over the last 50 years (other than foolishly offering free content online) while the entire media landscape has been transformed around them.

    I agree that we count on journalists to keep government honest, but unfortunately people don't seem to value that much. Same thing with music--when it became free, people stopped paying, the artists' intellectual property be damned.

    Let's face it--Buffett's generation of religious newspaper readers is being replaced by a generation of facebook junkies, not print news readers.

    --Jeremy Bowman

  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2012, at 4:32 PM, TMFHobo wrote:

    should read "Newspapers have done no innovating"

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1898315, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2016 2:50:05 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,145.09 -17.26 -0.10%
S&P 500 2,141.27 -0.07 0.00%
NASD 5,252.30 10.47 0.20%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/21/2016 2:33 PM
BRK-A $215700.00 Down -1275.00 -0.59%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: *****
BRK-B $143.79 Down -0.70 -0.48%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: *****
AOL.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
AOL CAPS Rating: *
GHC $468.00 Up +3.97 +0.86%
Graham Holdings CAPS Rating: ***
NYT $11.50 Down -0.05 -0.43%
The New York Times CAPS Rating: **