"The big balancing act" (Cover Story, November 16-22) makes for interesting reading, if not a decade or two late. In the article, Walter Madzonga says he sees the digital sphere as complementing that of newspapers.
I cannot agree more, and believe those chasing money and panicking now will lose the race.
In 2001 the then Periodical Publishers Association in the UK commissioned Guy Consterdine Associates to produce a study titled "The Vital Investment". Though aimed at the business-to-business (B2B) market, it found: "Websites have entered the market aggressively. Readers rate these a second to B2B and perceive the two mediums as complementary. Each enhances what the other can do."
Since then, the Internet has grown, but print and online are still, if handled correctly, complementary.
A more recent study by global trade association FIPP noted that 98% of Internet readers still refer to print.
It is also worth noting that Procter & Gamble removed £140m in adspend from Facebook and Google because the company could not identify whom its ads were reaching. It makes one think.
So what is the problem? Is the general media panicking or is it unable to adapt to a changing world?