????哈里?謝瑞爾在《哥倫比亞新聞評論》（Columbia Journalism Review）的專欄中寫道，這種“蹩腳的決定”表明，先進出版公司根本不了解新奧爾良的市場?！叭藗儾豢赡苷嬲诤踝约翰涣私獾臇|西?！敝x瑞爾是一位政治諷刺作家、演員、電臺主持人，同時也是新奧爾良居民，他認為，既然報紙享有美國憲法《第一修正案》（First Amendment）的保護，那么報紙的后臺老板們“也應該有所舍棄——至少應該平心靜氣接受比其他行業，比如汽車租賃行業，低一點的利潤率。”

????當然，沒有人希望報紙賠錢?？蓡栴}在于，報紙對利潤的追逐超過什么樣的界限，就會對它所服務的社區造成嚴重的傷害？在許多城市，這一界限多年以前就已經被打破。而對于這個因素，許多評論家同樣避而不談。有多少地方政府的丑聞沒有得到曝光？由于報社裁員，導致多少家長根本不清楚他們所在校區的狀況？（在上世紀70和80年代，絕對不可能出現這樣的情況。）而又有多少選民在不知情的情況下投出了選票，或者因為對于競選人知之甚少而放棄了投票？簡單的一份收益表根本無法衡量這樣的損失。

????從理論上來說，報紙老板懷念過去大把撈錢的好日子也情有可原，畢竟，在二十多年前，報紙的利潤率通常在30%左右，有時甚至會超過40%。（即便在十年前，報紙平均利潤率也超過20%。）然而，往事已矣，出版商也早就應該做好思想準備。雖然對當前報紙的利潤率估算存在差異，但大概范圍應該在8%至15%之間。報紙投資的青黃不接（需要注意的是，這一現象在互聯網興起之前就已經開始）最后都指向了一個結論：報紙老板不會投資于報紙的數字化誒來，只會通過盡可能削減成本，利用報紙圈錢，然后盡快脫身。而同時，他們又要面臨一個難題：雖然印刷廣告的收入在急劇減少，但在線廣告的收入仍遠遠低于印刷廣告，而且在線廣告的收入同樣在迅速下降。這也是狂熱的數字支持者們在威嚇出版商向全數字媒體轉變時盡量掩蓋的另外一個事實。

????據報道，除了每周減少四期報紙外，先進出版公司還計劃裁減約三分之一員工，包括編輯部員工（具體數字未知）。這表明他們只對一個衡量標準感興趣：現有資產未來收益的凈現值——而他們所關注的“未來”并沒有想象中那么長遠。否則，他們應該將減少出版期數節省的成本用于網絡運營投資。比如，增加精通網絡的記者和編輯等。但他們并沒有這么做，反而背道而馳。

????沃倫?巴菲特在給新奧爾良市一位音樂家的回信中寫道：從長期來看，先進出版公司的舉措是不可持續的。他表示，既然報紙有如此高的滲透率，“為什么發行日刊從經濟學角度來看會行不通？這讓他很是費解。當然，沒有具體的數據，我也無法進行具體分析?！?/p>

????By this "stumble-footed decision," Advance has revealed that it doesn't "understand the New Orleans market," writes Harry Shearer in a column for the Columbia Journalism Review. "You can't care about what you don't understand." Shearer, the political satirist, actor, radio host, and New Orleans resident, believes that since newspapers are unique in the First Amendment protections they enjoy, their owners "owe a little something back -- perhaps a calm acceptance of a lower profit margin than could be attained, say, in the car-leasing business."

????Of course, nobody wants newspapers to lose money. The question is, at what point does the pursuit of profit begin to do serious harm to the communities served by newspapers? In many cities, that point was reached years ago. This is another factor that often goes unaddressed in such discussions. How many local-government scandals have gone unreported? How many parents, who would have been well-informed in the '70s and '80s, are ignorant as to what's going on in their school districts because of cutbacks in reporting staffs? How many voters make uninformed decisions, or just decide not to show up at the polls, because they have little idea about what's going on in their state capitals? These things can't be measured by an income statement.

????Theoretically, newspaper owners might be forgiven for their nostalgic yearning for the profit margins of the past, which a couple of decades ago were often around 30% and sometimes went north of 40%. (Just a decade ago, the average was more than 20 percent). But those days are gone, and publishers have known it for years. Estimates vary widely, but margins now tend to average somewhere between 8% and 15%. The continued disinvestment in newspapers (which, it must be noted, began well before the Web came along) points to only one conclusion: owners, rather than investing in the digital future, are trying to wring as much money out of newspapers as they can by cutting costs as much as they can get away with. In the meantime, they're faced with a conundrum: although revenues from print ads are falling fast, online ads still draw far less, and rates for online ads are falling fast, too. Which is another fact that rabid digital enthusiasts tend to gloss over when they hector publishers to convert to all-digital publication.

????Along with cutting out four print editions per week, Advance is also reportedly planning to cut as much as a third of the staff, including some newsroom employees (specifics aren't known yet). This shows that they are interested in only one metric: the net present value of future returns on existing assets -- and not all that far into the future. Otherwise, they'd be taking the cost savings from the print cutback and investing them in the Web operation. By adding some Web-savvy reporters and editors to the staff, say. But they aren't. They're doing the opposite.

????Advance's move is "unsustainable over the longer term," wrote Warren Buffett in answer to a letter from a New Orleans musician. He said that, given the high penetration rate, he was "puzzled as to why the economics don't work on a seven-day basis. But I would have to have the detailed figures to make an analysis."