Are Newspapers Doomed? 338
Ponca City, We love you writes "James Surowiecki has an interesting article in the New Yorker that crystalizes the problems facing print newspapers today and explains why we may soon be seeing more major newspapers filing for bankruptcy, as the Tribune Company did last week. 'There's no mystery as to the source of all the trouble: advertising revenue has dried up,' writes Surowiecki, but the 'peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they've arguably become more popular,' with the blogosphere piggybacking on traditional journalism's content. Surowiecki imagines many possible futures for newspapers, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to deep-pocketed patrons. 'For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime — intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on — and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.'"
news from the 1990s (Score:3, Interesting)
Newspapers have been declared dead every few years for the past 15 or so. When I went to university, one of our projects was to come up with suggestions on how newspapers could leverage all the new tech (Internet was new at that time) so they could "survive".
Look, they're still around. I guess they'll still be here in another 15 years.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:3, Interesting)
Utter and complete nonsense. Almost every TV company in the free world is ad supported. Most usually successfully, until recently anyway. You are aware that many TV executives get paid in the millions?
The only reason Newspapers and TV companies are struggling is because they are failing to take advantage of new technology. They cling to 1950's business models -- Neilsen ratings, distribution and syndication methods that have remained unchanged for decades. And they're catering to parochial local audiences -- completely failing to understand global reach.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that there are not TV companies broadcasting shows to global language groups, regardless of nationality. There is no reason people in Australia, nor the UK should wait 3-6-12 months to see new shows first broadcast in the US. There is no reason -- in a global world with international companies that deals can't be struck with advertisers to reach audiences better. The internet allows then to target market, and understand audiences much better than the print, and cathode ray based media. This will even allow cult and special interest shows to be saved, and not canceled too early in their run -- since they will be counting on a global audience -- not just an unrepresentative sample in one country.
There is money to be made out there from supporting entertainment by advertising. MORE money than is currently being utilized. It is entirely their own fault that Newspapers and TV nets are struggling. The sooner they realize we've all moved in the 21st Century the better.
Same story (Score:4, Interesting)
I also work for a newspaper, and I was shown stories from the advent of radio how radio was going to kill newspapers. Then TV was going to kill newspapers. Then the internet was going to kill newspapers. IBM also said computers would give us a paperless office.
Re:Oh No! (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Free speech and freedom of the press were separate things in the Constitution for a reason. One is opinion and one is supposed to preserve the right to objective news
>>>
This is revisionist history. If you actually traveled back to the 1780s, 1790s, and 1810s, you would find all kinds of "unverified opinions" coming out of the presses. Newspapers and pamphlets (like "Common Sense" by Paine) were typically run by a single man, and that man used his press to push his own personal views. There was no objectivity back then.
And why should there be? If I want to publish a newspaper called "Liberty Today" why should I have to present both sides? It's MY paper and MY press. I should be able to decide what will and will not be published with MY dollars.
Mainstream reporting is biased, full of crap (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think we need to look much further than the most recent Iraq war to see how dangerous the current system is. All of our major media outlets are owned by very large corporations, many with defense interests. The press has always curried the favor of the deep pocket interests of the day. It's very instructive to look back at old press clippings on topics where we today know what the facts were ("Was the war a bad idea?" "Was this person corrupt?" "Will this harmless additive kill us?") and see how calm, certain, and forthright the pressmen were in their defense of the special interest. They have the air of the level-headed man of reason, putting our concerns to rest. Of course, they were dead fucking wrong but hey, we're all human, right?
It's true that the current blog model uses press articles and news reports as talking points to begin their own articles, those articles foster discussion threads, etc. If those dry up, more original reporting will need to be done.
But you know what? We've already reached that point with the mainstream media. Investigative journalism is expensive, nobody wants to pay for it. Most news articles these days are just repackaged press releases. Nobody wants to rock the boat and lose their jobs. If Bush says that Iraq has WMD's, if your editor tells you the organization is backing the administration's line because it's good for business, then you're writing about the WMD's. If you won't, there's a thousand other cub reporters just dying to get their shot at the big leagues.
I predict what we'll eventually see is all news sourcing going directly online. There's a lot of capital tied up in a traditional media operation be it the printing presses, distribution chain, and the useless overhead of the parent corporation that demands the news outlet be a profit center. Crossing my fingers, I hope we see a shakeout where traditional media outlets cannot compete with the price model of the net, they fall apart, and what replaces the AP feed is a loose federation of small-time private journalists who have small enough operations they can make their money off of the banner ads. They would peer with other sources to create their own wire feed and we see a more economic business model.
Re:"Soon?" (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue it was even before that when the 'news' papers ( and TV news ) lost all morality and no longer reported news, but instead lies and agendas.
My realization came in the late 80s after witnessing an 'event' in person and noticing that NOONE had the truth afterwards. Each news outlet twisted the facts to suit their own agenda. But if you were not there you would never know.
Re:Ad revenue is a bad model (Score:5, Interesting)
Would a government-owned news reporting company be more biased than what we have now?
That really depends on how the government decides to run it. It's simplistic to think that a government will always run things in the worst way possible, even if that is often the case. Ultimately, the question is, "Who is the government afraid of, and what does that person (or those people) want?" If the government is afraid of nobody, you get a propaganda arm. If the government is afraid of the voters, then you get what the voters want, whatever that may be.
Is the BBC worse than CNN or FOX News?
Absolutely not. The BBC is miles ahead of CNN or Fox News or, as far as I can tell, any other mainstream media outlet in the US. The Beeb is known for joyfully and viciously biting the hand that feeds it. The government doesn't like it, and often there are news stories about the gov threatening to pull funding, but I think (I don't live in Britain) that people just wouldn't tolerate it.
I watched the US Election coverage on the BBC (online stream) and the difference was amazing. It was also funny to see the American talking heads taking a beating when they got called on some of their more blatant departures from reality. They simply had no idea what it was like to be interviewed by an intelligent, skeptical person who wasn't prepared to swallow any bullshit. And the BBC people were actually being nice.
Government-paid television doesn't necessarily mean government-controlled television.
Re:I doubt all newspapers are... (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Goldstein stopped publishing Screw magazine and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
Well that's a loss of a fine publication. Boy. Our civilization will never be the same without "Screw" magazine. ;-) But seriously there's still a market for porn, but you can't just publish any old trash. You have to select the most artistic photos - something worthy of hanging in a museum, not some junk you tossed together in 5 minutes. If you make the photos artistic, you'll can still sell them in book form.
I stopped buying Playboy for that reason. It only costs $1 an issue - trivial - but the quality is not there. I can find better quality at a site like domai.com, which does cost more but it's simply better artistry.
Re:Perhaps the giants are dying (Score:3, Interesting)
In my town of roughly 30,000 people there are two newspapers. One of which is the traditional type, owned by some big conglomerate, that carries mostly wire stories and syndicated columns. In addition to being chock full of ads, you have to pay to get the thing.
The other one is published locally, by local folks, and mostly runs stories about local topics and columns from local writers. It too has lots of ads, but is doled out for free every week.
Guess which one of these is in financial trouble?
The problem big, traditional newspapers have is a lot of their content is focused on national level news. This is perhaps because they sell to people in so many communities.
But thanks to the Internet (and to some degree, 24 hour news channels), I can read that news before they print it. I suspect a lot of people are starting to do this. I see little value in buying something I've already read much of the content of.
Re:It's attrition in the target audience. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the newspapers with wider circulation may survive with local papers dying out completely. It should be possible for the nationally distributed newspapers to cannibalize the local and regional newspapers by offering versions with local news.
On top of that, they could probably also offer additional customization of content such as allowing you to choose which columnists appear in your copy. A service like that, combined with the fact that at least some sentimentality over print is likely to be passed on to the next generation should keep the newspaper around for some time.
Re:AP broke the newspaper industry (Score:5, Interesting)
I get two as well. One is a big regional paper and one is a tiny paper covering just two local towns. I read the comics and op/ed page in the big paper. I get nothing more out of it. All the "big" stories are old news because I've read them all online.
I do read the little local paper cover to cover and I always learn something new. I get full police reports ("mary and jimmys son was arrested again"), planning and zoning ("the wilburs got denied a permit to turn their garage into a rental apt...hah!"), legal ads, editorials about local politics, etc. I get way more out of the little one and I couldn't care less if projo.com dies.
Re:Oh No! (Score:5, Interesting)
correction: free press is so important to democracy that the first amendment to the Constitution specifically includes a clause for its explicit preservation. there's a reason it's called 'freedom of press,' not 'freedom of newspaper.'
i think it would be sad for professional journalism to go the way of the dodo, however i don't see this as likely to happen. we're simply seeing a shift from traditional media--like newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, etc.--to the new media of the web. and frankly, this is a very good thing. over the past few decades the mainstream media has become increasingly consolidated, with most media outlets being controlled by a handful of media conglomerates. this has not only homogenized the media, but it has also put the power of controlling how the public perceives the world into the hands of a select few.
however, with the advent of the web, we're starting to see a resurgence in independent news sources. this along with web search technology has made it easier than ever for individuals to access a wide/diverse range of media sources large and small, allowing people to account for inherent biases in the media and easily perform their own research and fact-checking. whereas newspapers and TV networks rarely publish/broadcast corrections (where people can see them) and admit to their journalistic blunders (such as the whole Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection, the non-existent WMDs, the incorrect reporting of election results, etc.), the online media establishment is very keen to challenge the facts reported by other news sources and identify misinformation.
frankly, this notion that print journalism is dead or dying is nothing new. TV/radio was supposed to have killed print journalism a long time ago. when JFK was shot, the newspapers found themselves unable to keep up with the live coverage and constant updates by TV networks. by the time they got a story out, it was already outdated or incorrect because the story had changed. they had to release several editions on the same day, and ended up printing different versions of the same edition with conflicting headlines [historybuff.com]. but somehow they managed to survive to this day one way or another.
personally, i'd prefer if newspapers became non-profits. by selling ads (usually about 50% of each edition) newspaper publishers become beholden to advertisers. additionally, most traditional media outlets are commercially tied to other corporate industries which have a vested interest in pushing public opinion in a certain direction, creating a very dangerous conflict of interest. for instance, General Electric, a major arms manufacturer, owns NBC, CNBC, MSNBC. this has serious implications on how these media outlets cover (or don't cover) the news.
Porting Journalism to the Web (Score:3, Interesting)
We're near the tipping point at which online news sites need to hire or acquire the talent that supported print publications. The recession will speed the demise of newspapers, making lots of talent available. Can web companies afford to seize this opportunity and invest in staff? It can happen. The Politico [politico.com] is one example of this opportunity.
But the bottom line is that there are a number of lean years ahead for journalists, who will likely face pay cuts as they shift from print to online.
Re:Only conservatives buy newspapers. (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, heh. Well, I'd say Tistork's subject line is spot on, but there's the great melting pot for you. I quit reading newspapers years ago because they unreflectively mouth the Neocon Proto-Fascist line. Quit watching network news and listening to public radio and switched to the BBC and Paris for audio and video and the internet for print for that matter.
Met a proud liberal around the Reagan years who started a campaign of spray-painting "Lies" on our metro newspaper boxes. According to Tistork, he must have surely been one mixed up dude biting the hand that fed him the propaganda he should have so dearly loved.
newspapers are cool... (Score:1, Interesting)
There's nothing I like to do better on Saturday and Sunday morning than sit down on the lounge floor and leaf them them. There's no buttons to click, no viruses to be afraid of, no cookies or anyone records to keep track of what I read and how often. I don't have to worry about whether or not flash is enabled or worry about my browser (or desktop) crashing while I'm reading. That there aren't 1001 "comments" from other readers (of which 99.99% are drivel) is just a bonus.
I don't get dry eyes from flicker or the glare of the screen, no poisonous chemicals in batteries to make them work, etc.
During the week, I can sit down and read the paper over breakfast (because it gets delivered.) I don't have to worry about coffee getting into the keyboard or needing to be careful about splashes of milk near it either. What's more, I can look down at the paper, which also happens to mean it is easy for me to look at what I'm doing with my food. I can then pickup said paper and read it on the train, in the toilet or if I'm feeling lucky, whilst walking.
The stories I read in the various big papers here are better than anything I can find in web based equivalents. They often get "exclusives" and the quality of journalism makes slashdot look like a high school project.
For those who think that the "advertising model" is doomed and they should find a better business model - guess what? nearly every "free" service you have online (slashdot, sourceforge, google), is funded through advertising revenue. If the printed media starts to feel the heat through a drop in advertising revenue, doesn't it stand to reason that other avenues will too? In that regard, maybe the printed media is the "canary in the coalmine" for other advertising based business models...
Now after I'm done reading the paper, I can recycle it, burn it (for warmth), cut bits out, archive it and know that I can still read it in 20 years, and so on. Printed media is vastly underrated.
2 other problems not just ad revenue (Score:3, Interesting)
Ad revenue is only one of 3 issues causing the collapse of the newspaper industry. While classified ads and print ads provided the bulk of newspaper's income, there are two other factors involved in recent problems. Think of advertising revenue as the "incoming problem" - here are the "outgoing problems"
Home delivery is the weak link in distribution. The Boston Globe, for instance, maintains a huge fleet of delivery trucks that bring papers not just around the city but throughout coastal New England. I'm not sure of the exact costs, but it has to be millions per year, to deliver dead trees to people's doors and stores. This is a hold-over from a time when media was a one-to-many form of distribution, it has almost no relevance to today's media markets or readers. Netbooks or e-readers shipped with custom software (NYTimes "Reader) or just the local paper's website as a landing page would make more sense.
The third problem is the readers and our changing habits. Most people don't have the time to read a newspaper or won't make the time - for younger people it interferes with Facebook & gaming, for middle-aged people it interferes with being overworked on that adjustable-rate mortgage train. The only reliable newspaper readers in demographic terms are retirees.
All of this boils down to one thing, one thing most papers have missed completely: relevance.
How to take massive institutions, industrial-era institutions if you've seen the presses running, and make them into nimble, 21stCentury, Internet-centric businesses? It's a tough nut to crack and so far I'm not seeing any of them actually make it work. It's weird because I personally love reading the news from a broadsheet but it's an anachronism when the entire world's news is available at my fingertips, 24/7. The world simply does not wait for the morning print run. When news impacts "after deadline" the morning newspaper is already out of date when it lands in the driveway.
-Josh
Newspaper Niche Disappearing (Score:4, Interesting)
25 years too early, but it was a very insightful prediction nonetheless. The problem newspapers are facing is that they have historically filled a very specific niche: rapid distribution of largely perishable information, i.e. "news". In the beginning, advances in communication technology only helped newspapers, as they were expensive and only a well funded entity could afford to transmit and receive information over long distances. TV and radio were the first to threaten newspapers, but they actually ended up just exploiting a new market for the most part--- "live" news--- as they're limited to the relatively low-speed communication inherent to the spoken word. Newspapers held an advantage purely in bandwidth. Large quantities of printed information on cheap pulp delivered to your door beat anything TV or radio could offer in sheer volume of information.
Then came the publicly available Internet. Essentially at one stroke, newspapers were pushed to second place in bandwidth. Even a 56Kbps dialup connection could feed the printed word faster and in greater volume than a printing press. Newspapers were doomed, but they didn't know it yet. It took some time for people to catch on. I personally put the tipping point about four years ago. For decades the local newspaper where I live has run an annoying telemarketing division to badger people into getting the local paper. About four years ago, I started answering their entreaties with "no thanks, I already read that paper online for free". These telemarketers, who historically had a scripted response to any excuse, could only respond "oh, OK, thanks for your time"! When a Los Angeles Times telemarketer can't come up with a reason for you to subscribe, the jig is up.
Re:Oh No! (Score:1, Interesting)
Despite what you may have heard on your favorite talk radio outlet, there has been no "recent push for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine" [tnr.com].
The only people fulminating about the Fairness Doctrine are right-wing talk radio blowhards, and that's because they need something to fulminate about, even if that something doesn't really exist.
Re:"Soon?" (Score:1, Interesting)
As a journalist, fact-checking is integral to the profession but it doesn't mean errors won't happen over time, but only with less frequency compared to a newbie reporter. Similarly, no programmer can write thousand of lines of code and have it run perfectly the first time. There are drafts and revisions, but even after it's published there are fixes and patches required to fix the problem. Both professions are beholden to accuracy and mistakes become fodder for entertainment or crucifixion. It is easier to judge our failures than successes.
I suppose that's why bittorrent is so popular. Why spend $100 for a program that requires constant patching out of the box? Just download a copy for free. Why pay for news if it's full of inaccuracies? It's the same strange rationale of entitlement.
I wouldn't blame the internet directly, but its effect on declining advertising sales is undeniable. We have budget cuts in the newsroom, staff being laid off every quarter, so to have prolonged investigative reporting is becoming too cost-prohibitive to the point where the only "content" we can produce are appropriated from the wire services (AP, Getty, AFP, UPI). While it's great that we expand our knowledge to world news and events, local news and council meetings have more direct and immediate influence over our lives.
If there are any bloggers in every city willing to report on council meetings, I for one welcome them to carry such 2-4 hour burden on an unpaid basis.
Where were the bloggers in the first 12 hours of the Tsunami in southeast asia in 2004? Bloggers in Katrina? Do they all have a Honda gas generator to power their laptops? (I think the lucky few that had, were busy powering more important devices such as medical equipment).
Bloggers are important and will be the future of reporting, but like any news company, it takes years - if not decades - to build up their reputation. Are we welcoming bloggers too soon?
Re:"Soon?" (Score:5, Interesting)
You are incorrect. There is still solid investigative news journalism going on. You just don't notice it because of the flood of other news from the limited number of places you look (many of which are likely tailored to your interests), and that is the fault of the internet.
Look at the list of "ongoing special projects" on this page describing the investigative journalism [mcclatchy.com] at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Each of those stories was an extensive investigation followed by a series of articles. Every one of them went through several reviews to ensure objectivity and defense-ability, because true, print journals publishing libel is easy fodder for lawsuits. In several cases, the subjects of the stories were arrested and charged after the stories were published, based in part on the research.
Re:"Soon?" (Score:3, Interesting)
"Each news outlet twisted the facts to suit their own agenda. But if you were not there you would never know."
That's why I get my news from unbiased sources like Fox, Kos, and 4chan.
The AP Model? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, since many newspapers are little more than repackaged AP and Reuters news, looking at the NY Times for guidance - I don't know what their value proposition is supposed to be.
I've heard at least one pundit suggest that maybe some newspapers should become like the AP - disassociate themselves from the publishing side of things. Stop publishing their newspapers themselves and instead become a subscription service that sells local coverage of their news to other newspapers. Whether it would actually work is beyond me, but it's an interesting theory.
Re:Oh No! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Oh No! (Score:3, Interesting)
In truth, the newspapers are supposed to be the most professional fact gatherers, but the truth is that they're quite biased one way or another, often depending on the overall demeanor of their city of origination. The unfortunate thing is that, like all facets of the media, newspapers are not written for the pure purpose of letting people know about what is going on in the world, but rather, to generate revenue. They want to sell more papers, gain a larger readership, and in turn, charge more for advertisement space. The end result is that editors choose and reporters write stories to, metaphorically speaking, jerk off their audience. There is no integrity.
Re:Epic 2015. (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem with "newspapers" is that, subtract the porn, what you describe is most of what you have left. Local newspapers, anyway.
As a former employee of the now-defunct Knight-Ridder newspaper chain and founder of two alternative weekly newspapers, I have some experience with the actual creation and operation of newspapers as a business. To keep it short, I'll keep it to a few points:
1) For years, the big newspaper chains have owed their problems more to shareholder expectations than to ability to actually make money. It created an environment where increased corporate profit (annually) was the only goal; when you can't charge more for product you decrease labor costs. Instead of investing in what makes their product useful (news), they rely on wire services (the AP) and use local writers for drivel. (See below.) So every year, if they did not make more money than they made the year before, their stoke prices fell. When their stock prices fell, they became more and more vulnerable to corporate takeover. Newspaper companies became more and more gobbled up into larger and larger companies. Large companies could hide the loses of inefficient newspapers with the massive profits of efficient newspapers. But when the company decides to cut employees, it doesn't say, "Paper A, you are a turd and you are going to lose all your employees, and we may shut you down. Paper B, you are the goose that lays the golden egg, and we shall not touch a feather." No, a corporate newspaper company says, "We are going to lay off 10 percent of our workforce," then everyone loses 10 percent, usually by early retirement and seniority, relatively arbitrary and simple methods of reducing workforce that don't involve anyone saying, "you suck; you're fired."
2) Some corporate idiot started asking the public what they wanted. Survey after survey showed that people "don't like bad news." Well, no kidding. But that's what they buy the paper for. It speaks to our primal need to find and avoid dangers. It scares the hell out of us so that we'll remember it, like watching your buddy get jumped by a lion on the plains. You think to yourself, "I better remember that Bob got jumped right there." And when you get back to the tribe, you don't say "Bob and I had a great day finding berries and hunting." You say, "Bob, hunter gatherer, killed in lion attack." But, 95% of the stories in your local newspapers will be about berries. Readers only remember the lions -- the other five percent -- which are bad news. Which makes you wonder why they bother with the 95 percent at all. It is a significant waste of one's resources. Those corporate tools also see statehouse reporting (for example) coverage as redundant, so save the local guy for the really local bourgeois stuff -- bake sales, feel-good ditties about toy runs and the Salvation Army, all the other things that no one complains (or cares) about. So, for years now corporately owned regional and local newspapers have been cutting back and back and back on any coverage that can be pooled. Then they wonder why nobody reads their publication to get the news. Well, because CNN had the same story from the AP posted on the web last night, you jackass. Break some news.
3) Newsprint is just a physical media. For some publications, it is perfect. Anything where you want people who are out and about to pick it up and carry it with you. But it's hella expensive. Not as expensive as people to write, but expensive. Still, the people are the really expensive part. My newspapers had almost all volunteer staffs and the newsprint was about 1/3 of the cost. But 1/3 less is 1/3 less.
Newspapers may die, but written journalism will live on. The shock to everyone is going to be that if you want to get paid for writing news then you are going to have to go out and report some new news all the time. Sorry, people aren't going to by regurgitated stories about Bob's lion attack when they've already heard it.
Local TV news is likewise doomed. Without a local newspaper to crib from, they
I wish I had mod points... (Score:2, Interesting)
Because you've earned +10 Insightful / Informative / Enlightening ...
My local area used to have two main newspapers, but then one got absorbed by the other, & we've had utter crap ever since.
Less news, more ads, less content, more crap.
I've come to rely on online news sources (AP, Reuters, etc) over print media for the simple fact that, by the time it IS in print, it's been online for upwards of a day, sometimes as much as a MONTH beforehand.
I'm not sure what keeps the newspapers in business given the only thing they have to offer over their online counter-parts is the added "value" of having to dig the paper out of the bushes, off the roof, or wring it out from the puddle the moron threw it into.
If I want a clean, professional, properly assembled (meaning *I* don't have to put it in its proper order) paper, I have to buy it from a vending machine.
The one I've paid to have delivered ends up arriving mangled (either by where it's landed, because of the rubber band used to hold it together, or both), wet (because they rarely use a plastic bag to cover them anymore), & unassembled.
Couple that with the fact that it's all old news I could (& have) read about online a day or two before, there's increasingly less reason to subscribe to it at all.
Which is why they keep giving it to me at half price when they call to ask me to renew & I tell them it's not worth the full price.
"It's old news regurgitated from online sources, stuffed full of ads like a Thanksgiving Turkey, & delivered in a completely unprofessional manner.
I'm not paying $30 a month for the 'convenience' of delivery when it's only two blocks to the nearest store that sells them, costs less per paper, & I end up getting a professionally prepared product.
You might want to think about that when it comes to renewing the delivery idiot's contract, because he's losing you a customer."
That's when they offer it at half price, promise to "reprimand" the delivery agent (they never do), & the cycle continues.
I think, next time it comes up, I'll cancel all-together.
There really is NO reason to get the thing anymore given the (lack of) quality & (un)professional delivery.
I'm already paying for internet where I can get my news for free.
The newspaper is worthless at that point.