Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)

hi cityfarmer, it doesn't worked for new york times as well, not sure about FT.com

paywall are really difficult. but the news publishing business has challenges due to questions like:

do you really need quality journalism? would you pay for it? or do you need just news? if you were to pay for it how much would you pay for it.

i somehow am leaning towards that i just need to know news, not super good quality.

and if that is the case quality journalism requires staffing, which is rising much faster than what they can charge for it.

---

(22-08-2013, 06:39 PM)KopiKat Wrote:

(22-08-2013, 06:30 PM)Drizzt Wrote: as always only SPH can warrant such a strong reaction. that is what i observed from the profit statement through these quarters, what is classified as media. I did not come up with that category,sph did. I believe in seeing the figures. by no means am i concluding. but if a large part of earnings come from distribution and advertising and revenue have consistently been going down, isnt that bleeding.

this business have become more of a developer and renting and people like it because of brand.

perhaps its better because you get tax savings. a lot of the diversification really don't add much to long term recurring cash flow that is sizable.

do correct me if i am wrong on this.

Thx! At least I learnt a new meaning of bleeding today!
Quite different from my usual understanding..

Bleed
1. To lose money in a venture or investment over time. Bleeding may occur fast or slowly, but never improves.

ah i didnt study english that well. i never knew its a term for never improves....

---

(22-08-2013, 10:10 PM)Greenrookie Wrote:

(22-08-2013, 06:18 PM)Drizzt Wrote: you can invest in half that in APTT for 10% yield! and the business is likely to be less corroding then this!

Hi Drizzt,

Can you explain why you find APTT less corroding? I took a closer look (just preliminary, tempted by the yield and since it is highlighted by u ), saw the gearing level and the OCF and is quite turned off.

While my gut feels is not accurate, I already know of friends and relatives who have ways to stream channels from starhub and mio TV without paying, I am not sure how "copyrights" conscious Taiwanese have, but if you ask me what is the risk of decoding devices or internet streaming bleeding the pay TV and the risk of digital platforms bleeding the newspaper in singapore, I would think the later has higher chance of survival. Care to explain why you think APTT is less corroding?

its a matter that if everything is legal which one is a more sturdy model.

there may be a habitual enjoyment in reading paper news media, and a consistent need by big companies to advertise, but i felt that in terms of culture and habits, TV watching is something really hard to shake off.

as long as its not too expensive, you will just treat that as part of what you need to pay and not think about it. would Singaporean's look at newspaper that way?

i am not really talking so much on the health of the balance sheet and debt risk (which i should!) more of the business and the yield provided. perhaps 10% is a good enough compensation vs 6% for a little more debt.

one no matter what they do tries to maintain a 10% payout while the other builts more malls and rents them to maintain a 6% payout. which would you take.

as a summary, i felt the model of taiwan broadband and pay tv to be more future proof vs print media, but safety wise i would rather choose SPH over APTT due to the debt level and the management.

(23-08-2013, 09:37 PM)Drizzt Wrote: as a summary, i felt the model of taiwan broadband and pay tv to be more future proof vs print media, but safety wise i would rather choose SPH over APTT due to the debt level and the management.

I am not so sure about which one is better in the future, but in terms of safety, I highly agree that SPH is safer than APTT at the current moments.

Well, that would simply explain why APTT will trade at a 10% yield vs SPH's 6% (probably lower?)

Mr Market is smart afterall!


I would like to add that in the case of Singapore, SPH is the official local newspaper. This is itself a major barrier.
Any business that wants marketing done in local newspaper will have to go through SPH.

(24-08-2013, 01:06 AM)momoeagle Wrote:

(23-08-2013, 09:37 PM)Drizzt Wrote: as a summary, i felt the model of taiwan broadband and pay tv to be more future proof vs print media, but safety wise i would rather choose SPH over APTT due to the debt level and the management.

I am not so sure about which one is better in the future, but in terms of safety, I highly agree that SPH is safer than APTT at the current moments.

Well, that would simply explain why APTT will trade at a 10% yield vs SPH's 6% (probably lower?)

Mr Market is smart afterall!


I would like to add that in the case of Singapore, SPH is the official local newspaper. This is itself a major barrier.
Any business that wants marketing done in local newspaper will have to go through SPH.

moats will grow and crumble. it is more healthy to think whether there will be a coming trend where the effectiveness of global advertising mediums like Instagram, Twitter, Adsense and Facebook Advertising becomes collectively more successful in outreach.

in a private conversation you perhaps mentioned the big business use this and its their style. But i read that recently the Marketing department is coming to grips because alot of these traditionalist find it hard to figure out these whole new world of internet advertising.

In this space, SPH is NOT the only medium. They play in the same field as Singtel, M1 and Starhub, Singpost who holds much population.

When you have a population so close, you get a better Signal to Ads, better signal to ads allow more effective ads and more ads to sell.

SPH is big, but Singtel M1 and Starhub are not slouches as well (even though i think they are pretty lame now).

An old article dated 20-Jul-10, not sure if it's still relevant, but addresses many of the points being discussed in this thread,

Charge for news or bleed red ink


An even older article dated 5-Jun-08,

Microsoft's Ballmer on Yahoo and the Future

His prediction on media,


What is your outlook for the future of media?

In the next 10 years, the whole world of media, communications and advertising are going to be turned upside down -- my opinion.

Here are the premises I have. Number one, there will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.


Only 5 more years to go....

Good article. This may happen in about 10yrs time here. Meanwhile, people still have habit of looking at hardcopy, and is still common for the older generation. Thus SPH's paper w still have demand. Further more, agencies w still spread news using newspapers like cpf, nea, mom, nie etc. You can presume the dividend payout will be ok for the next 10 yrs at least.

(24-08-2013, 11:29 AM)KopiKat Wrote: An old article dated 20-Jul-10, not sure if it's still relevant, but addresses many of the points being discussed in this thread,

Charge for news or bleed red ink


An even older article dated 5-Jun-08,

Microsoft's Ballmer on Yahoo and the Future

His prediction on media,


What is your outlook for the future of media?

In the next 10 years, the whole world of media, communications and advertising are going to be turned upside down -- my opinion.

Here are the premises I have. Number one, there will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.


Only 5 more years to go....

(23-08-2013, 09:37 PM)Drizzt Wrote: hi cityfarmer, it doesn't worked for new york times as well, not sure about FT.com

paywall are really difficult. but the news publishing business has challenges due to questions like:

do you really need quality journalism? would you pay for it? or do you need just news? if you were to pay for it how much would you pay for it.

i somehow am leaning towards that i just need to know news, not super good quality.

and if that is the case quality journalism requires staffing, which is rising much faster than what they can charge for it.

I have a different view. The survival of a newspaper, highly depend on the quality of articles published, not on news update. It is especially so on articles of local issues. I am willing to pay for it, to get insights and views...

News update of newspaper, will never beat other medias in term of coverage and time...I will not pay for it...

(24-08-2013, 11:29 AM)KopiKat Wrote: An old article dated 20-Jul-10, not sure if it's still relevant, but addresses many of the points being discussed in this thread,

Charge for news or bleed red ink


An even older article dated 5-Jun-08,

Microsoft's Ballmer on Yahoo and the Future

His prediction on media,


What is your outlook for the future of media?

In the next 10 years, the whole world of media, communications and advertising are going to be turned upside down -- my opinion.

Here are the premises I have. Number one, there will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.


Only 5 more years to go....

which is why we will never know, but the independant research and the company results should show whether this is true or not.

---

(24-08-2013, 11:59 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(23-08-2013, 09:37 PM)Drizzt Wrote: hi cityfarmer, it doesn't worked for new york times as well, not sure about FT.com

paywall are really difficult. but the news publishing business has challenges due to questions like:

do you really need quality journalism? would you pay for it? or do you need just news? if you were to pay for it how much would you pay for it.

i somehow am leaning towards that i just need to know news, not super good quality.

and if that is the case quality journalism requires staffing, which is rising much faster than what they can charge for it.

I have a different view. The survival of a newspaper, highly depend on the quality of articles published, not on news update. It is especially so on articles of local issues. I am willing to pay for it, to get insights and views...

News update of newspaper, will never beat other medias in term of coverage and time...I will not pay for it...

ah i also enjoy good journalizm once in a while, which is why i question whether we should pay for journalizm or not.

the freaking kiasu and stingy singaporeans i feel will not, singaporean's arent so much a reason population.

new york times lost a star journalist to ESPN. he basically drive a lot of the traffic. this shows that jouranlism quality still plays a part

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22...36035.html

NEW YORK -– A couple weeks after Nate Silver was proven right across all 50 states on Election Day last year, Gawker Media chief Nick Denton honored The New York Times blogger and statistician with a book party in his Soho loft. Bill Keller, the former Times executive editor who convinced Silver to bring his FiveThirtyEight blog to the paper in 2010, offered a glowing introduction to the emerging Times star.

“I strongly suspect,” Keller said, “the first line of my obit will be ‘Bill Keller, who brought Nate Silver to The New York Times.’”

Keller may have been joking, but coming on the heels of Silver’s blog accounting for 20 percent of the paper’s online traffic, it was hard to overstate the 35-year-old's importance to the Times. Now eight months later, Silver is heading to ESPN in a move that strikes a blow to the venerable newspaper and has sparked speculation about whether he fit with the newsroom culture.

Silver, who started with Baseball Prospectus, a website devoted to the statistical analysis of baseball, will return to covering sports at ESPN as part of a mega-deal officially announced Monday. Silver will serve as editor-in-chief of an expanded FiveThirtyEight that will be modeled after ESPN’s Grantland site, while getting the opportunity to expand coverage beyond sports and politics. (Unlike The Times' three-year licensing deal, ESPN has bought the FiveThirtyEight name and domain.)

In addition, Silver will contribute political analysis to ABC News, which, like ESPN, is owned by Disney.

During a Monday conference call with reporters, Silver described the new ESPN-ABC gig as his “dream job.”

“What I’ve done now with politics at FiveThirtyEight is an approach we think is applicable to lots of areas,” Silver said, adding there’s potential in business, economics, weather, health, education, technology and culture.

“We’re not going to necessarily cover all those things all at once, but really more of a horizontal approach for how we do journalism and how we make data resonate for people in terms of storytelling and visuals and good journalism and everything else,” Silver said. “I think I found the perfect partner to do that given the resources that ESPN and ABC has.”

But as Silver tried shifting the focus to his current employer, speculation loomed in media circles about his decision to leave the Times and whether cultural factors within the newsroom contributed to in his final decision.

The Times’ Brian Stelter broke the news Friday that Silver was leaving the paper, with Politico’s Mike Allen asking Playbook readers on Saturday to send in any “tick-tock/details on these negotiations.”

In Sunday’s “Playbook,” Allen reported how ESPN-ABC landed Silver following some initial interest from NBC and Bloomberg and a counteroffer from the Times. Allen reported that Times publisher and chairman Arthur Sulberger Jr. and CEO Mark Thompson worked to keep Silver, who was offered his own “brand-within-a-brand” with staff, similar to Andrew Ross Sorkin’s DealBook or Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog at The Washington Post.

During the 2012 race, Silver drew sneers from some Beltway journalists for going against conventional wisdom that the Obama-Romney race was close, an argument he made based on analysis of polls rather than punditry. Silver also found critics within the Times.

On Monday, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan described Silver at a “disruptive” force at the Times who did not “ever really fit into the Times culture and I think he was aware of that.” Sullivan revealed that "three high-profile Times political journalists" emailed her to criticize Silver and his work after she wrote about the blogger last September.

"The petty treatment of Nate Silver by some at the NYT is disappointing," tweeted Don Van Natta, a Pulitzer-winning journalist who left the Times for ESPN in 2011. "He will love @ESPN's supportive culture."

On Monday afternoon, this reporter asked Silver about the public editor's column, whether he felt constrained by the Times newsroom culture, and if he had enough support from colleagues.

“I had plenty of support, I felt, from [executive editor Jill Abramson] and from other key people at the Times,” Silver said. “I don’t really want to dwell too much to my relationships there. It was not -– I would say, I love the people at ESPN.“

Silver added that any cultural issue was “not a big factor” in his decision.

When asked again later about the public editor column, Silver said his focus now is on building a website and business. "I’m not interested in who I’m getting a beer with," Silver said. "I have plenty of people in my social circles for that. These cultural issues, I think, are getting a little more play than is appropriate.”

Near the end of the conference call, Silver said he weighed about six factors before deciding to leave for ESPN, including money, prestige, editorial freedom, fun, and challenge. ESPN wouldn't comment on how much it's paying to get the website and Silver.

“There’s no doubt, for different reasons, it might be easier for me to stay at The New York Times,” Silver said. “But I’ve been someone who, every four years, has shifted my career in different and subtle ways and that motivates me, right? There are going to be some things that are challenging here, especially in the building process, but the fact that there are, I tend to succeed under those circumstances.”

“I get too comfortable," Silver said, "I become uncomfortable, ironically."

Ultimately, it is more than a case of responsible journalism content. It includes understanding why readers are willing to pay for news.

Finally, the circulation determines how much advertisement demand and dollars SPH can earn.

I think you will be surprised that there are people who buy Strait Times not for the news - but the classified and supermarket advertisement. Not too long back, NTUC used to have coupons printed for their weekly special. They dun do that now but I'm sure in the past people buy ST just for the coupons.

Of cos, I think this group of people is probably not significantly large. So ultimately the impact won't be significant.

In the case of ST, its a little curious but I suspect that becos its been a part of so many people life, and intimately ingrained, it would be difficult to give it up - especially for the older folks. The younger chaps will pay for news as shown in the continued good circulation of New Paper. So I dun think it the case of paying for responsible journalism content. And of cos when you talk about ST, you cannot avoid the topic of its pro-govt stance (correctly or otherwise not important). So question is: How many people on the other side of the fence has given up on ST because of this reason?

Personally, ST is a good to have but not a must have. Given a choice, I can give up ST and just relied on the free sheets like Today and MyPaper for the essential news items.

(25-08-2013, 08:03 PM)lonewolf Wrote: I think you will be surprised that there are people who buy Strait Times not for the news - but the classified and supermarket advertisement. Not too long back, NTUC used to have coupons printed for their weekly special. They dun do that now but I'm sure in the past people buy ST just for the coupons.

Of cos, I think this group of people is probably not significantly large. So ultimately the impact won't be significant.

In the case of ST, its a little curious but I suspect that becos its been a part of so many people life, and intimately ingrained, it would be difficult to give it up - especially for the older folks. The younger chaps will pay for news as shown in the continued good circulation of New Paper. So I dun think it the case of paying for responsible journalism content. And of cos when you talk about ST, you cannot avoid the topic of its pro-govt stance (correctly or otherwise not important). So question is: How many people on the other side of the fence has given up on ST because of this reason?

Personally, ST is a good to have but not a must have. Given a choice, I can give up ST and just relied on the free sheets like Today and MyPaper for the essential news items.

SPH owns My Paper and part of Today and as such, also earn revenue from advertisements in these two free tabloids. Therefore, you have just reinforced the fact that newspaper would not disappear in the interim.