Web-only vs. print-only business models

Following up on my modest proposal for Detroit, there's new evidence that a print-only model may be viable, and a web-only model may not be too far off.

First, New York Times media business reporter David Carr profiles TriCityNews of Monmouth County, NJ. It's an alternative weekly, granted, but the real "alternative" here is that it doesn't publish articles on the web. Instead, you actually have to pick up a free copy of the printed paper, complete with "beautiful full-page ads." It's a decidedly low-tech business model that's generating double-digit profit margins during a recession. "Right now, the Web makes no business sense for us," says Dan Jacobson, the paper's owner.

On the other side of the coin, there's word that the Los Angeles Times' web revenue is exceeding its editorial payroll costs. As commenters on Jeff Jarvis' blog point out, this doesn't mean that LAT can drop its printing operations and business offices, and survive with just a newsroom. But with payrolls shrinking and internet ad revenue increasing (albeit at a declining pace), the break-even point for a big, online-only newspaper may be approaching. Up for debate: whether shedding the print "anchor" will erode the brand and hurt online traffic and ad sales.

There's no doubt that print operations account for a large portion of a newspaper's budget, perhaps around half. But the print product is also making much more money than the online product. So which is the right approach? It's unclear. Until newspapers can come up with more effective web advertising options to sell, while also adding a diverse array of new revenue streams, I'd put my money on a print-only paper over an online-only one.