• by Sean Hargrave , Staff Writer, February 10, 2016

It's not an overnight phenomenon, but little by little traditional journalism and the print trade are dying. The latest sign is The Telegraph calling in Deloitte for a strategy that will lead to one of two things -- a selloff or redundancies -- or more likely, a round of redundancies before a selloff is attempted. This is a huge British quality broadsheet paper that is simply holding up its hands and admitting that it needs help to make the drastic action required to save itself or secure a sale.

Another household name in quality broadsheet journalism is also planning a large number of redundancies. I can't say which because the friend who is involved hasn't even yet told the staff whose number are due to be cut in the coming months. Then we have Johnston Press announcing mass local redundancies and Trinity Mirror announcing not so many but still laying off staff across its national and local titles.

Local World, the brand that is supposed to buck the trend and bring life in to new local areas, has even announced a cutback on jobs because it can use images access through social media. Journalists at The Express are even resorting to sending MPs letters in the hope they can persuade the paper's owner to five them their first pay rise in several years.

It's always around this time that people point to the success of Mail Online and The Guardian. Well, the Mail Online can succeed because it comes nearest to having the mind-boggling numbers required to earn enough revenue to pay for its journalism, even if that journalism is now little more than an endless list of gossip and "stars" you've never heard of in bikinis being surprised by the paparazzi.

The Guardian is another point altogether. It's often held up as the shining light of how liberal journalism can hold up in the age of click bait and keep the trust that runs the paper ticking over nicely.

The Guardian has been selling off the family silver. Its trust fund ballooned with the disposal of Auto Trader -- but even so, the paper knows it has less than a decade in the tank at its current burn rate. Thus it has floated Ascential with a market cap of £800 -- the paper owns roughly a third of the company. At the same time, it is on a mission to slash £50m a year from its cost base. So, the treasures are being sold off at the same time as belts are tightened. The selloff is well underway but nobody at The Guardian can be under any illusion -- cuts are on their way, and that can't be good for staff number nor morale.

Let's not forget when we talk about the Telegraph, we're talking about the paper where quality journalism brought MPs to their knees over expenses and with the Guardian the paper that helped uncover everyday intelligence surveillance of social media and telephone records through Snowden's revelations. You may agree or disagree with either paper's stance, but we'd all have to concede that our democracy is stronger when the authorities are held to account by professionals whose output generates an income for them and their co-workers.

With circulations falling through the floor, digital revenues proving unable to fill the hole in finances this causes and with digital display beset with problems of viewability, click fraud and ad blocking, this really is what Laurel and Hardy might have referred to as "a fine mess."

Native advertising has to be part of the solution, but it can only be a part. Somehow the newspapers have to get back to charging for their content -- and they absolutely have to stop content being viewed for free with ad stripped out by ad blockers. No general-news newspaper has got it right. Specialist publications can rely on an engaged readership need to be well informed about their profession and rake in money from must-attend conferences which set the tone for their industry.

Other than trying to flog off a bit of dodgy beer and wine (I know this from past experience) the quality press are struggling to find new revenue streams -- at the same time that charging for their content seems their only viable option which is too tough for all to take when so much content is still available out there for free.

Newspapers have become so desperate for revenue that they are now playing straight in to Facebook's hands and launching content on the social media giant. They're simply not picking up the lesson that more isn't always better. They don't need more readers as much as they need more revenue, and launching content on someone else's platform isn't going to do that.

There are only a couple of viable options. Stand behind a paywall and hope those who remain loyal will pay the bills, as The Times is doing -- or hope people like your stuff so much they'll pay to go over their free limit, as The Telegraph is doing. At least the latter route opens up native to a wider audience and so is more likely to appeal to brands.

I would have said a couple of years ago that papers could come together and share content through a news stand in which people buy a monthly pass and flit from one title to another with their consumption being measured and the providers being remunerated appropriately. Unfortunately, if the papers did this, they'd end up paying Apple to launch it or do it via social media and let Facebook control the data.

Sorry to be so down, but I can't see how today's newspapers can survive -- certainly not without either tipping the pendulum far more heavily toward native content or going out more aggressively for subscriptions. WhenThe Telegraph gets the consultants in, you know it's one of those moments when the impact of the move from print to digital is being hammered home.