→ Media, Must Reads
15 Years to Go
| Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:16 AM PDT
It's news to no one that physical, print newspapers are in the throes of a historic decline. But the numbers themselves really take your breath away when you see them.
According to the Audit Bureau, daily circulation fell 10.6% year over year in the period between April to September.
Ad revenues are one thing; and they're likely enough to be fatal to newspapers as the dominant mode of news distribution in the country. But that figures in economic trends of various sorts. But readership, while obviously intimately related, is a different sort of metric. I have many thoughts on this. But at the moment I'm not sure what to say other than those numbers take my breath away. A ten percent decline year over year is the rate of a mode of distribution going out of existence.
A few years ago I was on a panel discussion and the moderator asked us all how long newspapers distributed on newsprint would last in the United States. My guess was 20 years: that is, the last newspaper in the country would shut its doors in 2025.
That's now looking pretty optimistic: a lot of people these days seem to think that 2012 is more like it, and today's news won't do anything to change their minds. At the same time, there are various ways you can look at that 10% drop, and one of them is simply that the recession has condensed several years of decline into a single year. A $500 newspaper subscription is a prime candidate to get sliced out of the family budget when times are tough and news can be found everywhere. So maybe all that's happening is that a cohort of the least dedicated readers are leaving all at once, and when the recession starts to lift newspaper circulations will begin to stabilize a bit. Or at least decline more slowly.
Maybe. I'm not sure what I think anymore. On the one hand, there's a generational attachment to newspapers that just won't go away as fast as people think. (People routinely underestimate generational attachments. But the fact is that they only truly go away when generations die out, and that takes a while.) On the other hand, there really does seem to be a tipping point issue here: as circulations decline, and newspapers respond by cutting back staff, the quality of the product spirals down. That's a vicious cycle, and there's a point at which the quality deteriorates so fast and so hard that even old newspaper diehards just don't want to bother anymore. I'm pretty far along the diehard continuum myself, but the deterioration of the LA Times is so obvious these days that even I'm not sure how much longer I really feel like paying for it. We'll see.
In any case, I guess I'll stick with 2025 for now. There may be small local papers around for longer than that, but no big city dailies. New York will be the last to go, but in fifteen years newspapers will be a thing of the past even there.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Comics
Submitted by lq (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:38 AM PDT.
I started subscribing to the SFChron in 1959, and have been a steady subscriber for the most part ever since. The past two decades have really been rough on my generation of readers, and the Chron (now an evil Hearst paper) has me on the ropes. They put articles written by the tiny number of staff they still employ as reporters on the front page, but inside it's all AP, or lifted from other newswires - and stories are very old (2-3 days after you see them reported on the online blogs). So why do I still subscribe? Jon Carroll and the comics. Even Jon Carroll's collumn I could get online, but the comics? Not so much. Once they figure out how to group all the comics into one website that you can customize, I think you will see a huge drop in readership of delivered newspapers. Pretty sad when my local, VERY local, paper has more relevant info than the Chron. Breaks my heart - and my local paper is so reactionary regarding its editorial/political stance. Too depressing.
Customize comics
Submitted by dusty (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 6:31 PM PDT.
hey lq, you can customize all the daily comics you wish to read at another Chronicle website...the Houston Chronicle . Here it is: http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/byocp.mpl
Not to give you another reason to drop the SF Chron; Hearst should really be enough.
I never ever thought I'd say this,
Submitted by Linkmeister (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:38 AM PDT.
but the Chandler family put out a better product than the Tribune Co. ever has.
And that's just judging from the sports pages!
That will be a bad day
Submitted by PaperReader (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:40 AM PDT.
I'm under 40 and I read the paper every morning. My father read the paper as well, and I picked it up from him. Sure, I read the news online too, but sitting down and reading a paper over a cup of coffee is my morning. Staring a screen just seems like an incomplete substitue. I like to think I'm younger than many of those you claim have a "generational attachment" to the paper.
Eventually, you are probably right and that staring at the netbook or the kindle will be the wave of the future. That will be sad. No more sharing of sections between members of the family, no more flipping through sections you don't read regularly to see if something catches your eye. I do hope that a "final" printed paper, even an electronic one, remains in the future. I find the online sources, even from respected news agency, are routinely filled with errors, both grammatical and factual, as editing takes a back seat to speed. That is a tendency that makes newspapers a still needed news outlet.
"A $500 newspaper
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:44 AM PDT.
"A $500 newspaper subscription is a prime candidate to get sliced out of the family budget when times are tough"
$500? Seriously??? I forget what my LA Time subscription was (weekend from Thursday to Sunday), but it was of order $20 for three months.
I can't help but believe that "economics" is simply one more in the sorry parade of excuses newspapers keep giving in a desperate attempt to blame anyone but themselves for their problems. Consider my situation --- the price I was paying, had been paying for years, was hardly the issue. But one day I saw yet ANOTHER mendacious story about the terrible tax burden being imposed on the California rich and I snapped, asked myself why the hell I was supporting an organization that was pissing in the well of public discourse, and cancelled my subscription.
The issue is NOT NOT NOT that the LA Times, Wa Po, NY Times cost too much. It is that they print irrelevant bullshit sans context. What Drum, and DeLong, and Yglesias offer is that, rather than imply repeating some press release, they will point out the inconsistencies in the release, the fact that it blatantly contradicts what was said three days ago; they will happily call it a lie. They offer a service I find valuable, and one with newspapers are clearly unwilling to offer.
Newspapers go on and on about how, if you understand the conventions and details of how they write stories, you will appreciate that they are also calling the press release a lie. You know what, newspapers? I already have a language I speak, one called everyday English --- and I am not interested in learning your specially invented language.
Enjoy writing in code for the minute audience that cares --- perhaps you can switch to an Esperanto edition in 2011?
Quoted for truth
Submitted by low-tech cyclist on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 12:01 PM PDT.
"The issue is NOT NOT NOT that the LA Times, Wa Po, NY Times cost too much. It is that they print irrelevant bullshit sans context. What Drum, and DeLong, and Yglesias offer is that, rather than imply repeating some press release, they will point out the inconsistencies in the release, the fact that it blatantly contradicts what was said three days ago; they will happily call it a lie. They offer a service I find valuable, and one with newspapers are clearly unwilling to offer."
Damned straight. This is EXACTLY why I get a serious chunk of my news through blogs: context and judgment.
Supposedly the op-ed pages are supposed to supply that. But so many of the op-ed writers nowadays are royalists, ideologues, and worthless hacks. (George Will pulls off the trifecta.) And at least at the WaPo, they all somehow manage to keep their well-paid jobs, even as actual reporters get kicked to the curb.
In an era where intelligent commentary is a cheap and abundant resource, I find it a bit of a slap in the face that the WaPo still expects me to read the opinions of a bunch of people whose commentary is especially worthless, and values the opinions of those people more than they value actual reporting.
Which is why I no longer pay for a subscription to the WaPo.
Newspapers
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:48 AM PDT.
I live in Dallas and stopped reading the Dallas Morning News years ago. It's the only major daily left in town. Why did I stop reading it? Simple answers. Open the newspaper's front page and spend the next ten to twenty pages in what I called the Dillards section. For those of you that don't have one, Dillards is a department store. Everyday, week in week out, and all you got was ads with barely anything of reporting that had any substance whatsoever. They should be paying us to read it instead of the other way around.
Decline and fall
Submitted by RZ (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:54 AM PDT.
In the past few years, as newspaper circulation has fallen, the papers have responded by raising their prices. However surprising as it may sound, this was the SOP for the past 30 years. You raised your rates to cut circulation. As a result, the CPM (cost per thousand readers) paid by advertisers went up. Then you dropped your subscription price. Subscriptions rose. So you hiked rates on advertisers to get the same CPM as when circulation was lower. Then you raised your subscription price. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This time the formula didn't work so well because of competition from the internet. It'll take them some time to figure out a new formula.
Newspapers are still generating operating profits. They are in bankruptcy courts because they took on too much debt since 2000.
They will shrink and some/many will go away, but stability will come, but the industry will be much smaller than it is now. Newsrooms will probably shrink by 2/3. BTW, I'm counting a successful transition to the internet (a la NYT) as a newspaper.
Also, small-town papers continue to be quite successful, as their niche is tough to do well from the internet - at least for now.
Newspapers aren't going to disappear
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 11:15 AM PDT.
May I fearlessly predict that newspapers will never disappear?!
Sure the current model is on the ropes...and who knows whether there's a future for the classic mid-size market daily with an extensive newsroom?...however, the bottom line is that people do like reading the paper - if you take the subway, you're sure to see lots of folks attentively looking over some sort of paper - perhaps one of those free dailies...btw you'll also see people doing other supposedly archaic things, such as reading books as well...moreover, hasn't some of the challenge been that private equity types have taken over papers producing a healthy cash flow and loaded them up with unsustainable debt levels? So not all of newspapers' misfortunes are actually tied to readership...I have to think that a new iteration of the newspaper will emerge, based on a business model that makes sense in a radically changed market place
lack of community advocacy
Submitted by tpx on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 11:34 AM PDT.
These days the writers of headlines and editorials at major city daily newspapers, the editors and publishers, owe their professional success to political allegiance to a large corporation, instead of earning their positions as good writers on issues that benefit their readers. Subscribing to a major city daily newspaper means supporting an oligopoly that does not have the best interests of the community as its primary goal, so it is interesting that people have begun to reduce their economic support of them. People may not consciously end their subscriptions to newspapers because of the papers lack of community advocacy, but lack of community advocacy must have some negative effect, especially after advocating for useless wars and a reorganization of the political economy for the benefit of the wealthy.
Many newspapers best writers are in the sports section, which at least demonstrates some community involvement, but not enough to keep a subscription during highly competitive times for journalistic enterprises.
I think it depends on the
Submitted by David in NY (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 11:59 AM PDT.
I think it depends on the market. In the little town in upstate NY where I spend most of my week-ends, there was a home-grown bi-weekly paper that covered our county that got eaten by one of the conglomerates a few years ago that borrowed a half-billion it couldn't pay and went belly-up. It was awful. Everybody felt this incredible loss. Maybe this was just because the area fell in one of those niches that wasn't covered (unless it was a really big fire) by any TV or the papers in the larger cities around.
So the former editor of the former paper started a new one, in his garage it looked like. And, unlike most papers, the ad space is increasing, there is actually sound reporting of local issues that is increasing, they're looking for employees, they're now offering subscriptions (suggesting they intend to be around), and we can find out what the hell is going on in the county again.
I'm not sure if there's a lesson here, but maybe it is that a paper can succeed if it finds a way to give people something they can't get elsewhere.
As a former newspaper writer
Submitted by JMG (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 12:41 PM PDT.
As a former newspaper writer of three decades standing, I believe some form of the news-gathering and distribution organizations we call "newspapers" will survive in almost every community. How it will distribute the news is not clear, but it's a market need, and someone will figure out how to fill it.
The information known as "news" is a highly labor-intensive and expensive product. The problem is, it's been given away for over a century. You may see traditional "free" or advertising-supported news organizations run by Google or someone like that (ESPN.com is a model), and local general news organizations that charge significantly higher prices than they do now, because as poster above noted, they have captive markets.
Maybe Obama's Death Panels will speed up the generational factor
Submitted by Quiddity who can't login as Quiddity (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 12:48 PM PDT.
Did you think about that? And after newspapers are out of the picture it's Total Mind Control by the Obama-Acorn-Communist cabal through subconscious message encoding in jpg images.
A few people were saying the mind control would be via Flash animation, but that's just paranoid conspiracy talk. It's really the jpegs that we should be worried about.
Mass mind control comes from
Submitted by tpx on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 5:32 PM PDT.
Mass mind control comes from the medium of radio.
I'm happy to pay, but I don't want all these dead trees around
Submitted by JR (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 1:34 PM PDT.
I'm 31. I like blogs as much as the next young person (and Kevin Drum's is one of my favorites) but I get most of my actual news from newspapers' websites, especially the New York Times. McClatchy DC is also pretty good.
Blogs are no substitute for news-gathering. TPM does some news-gathering now, and that's great, but mostly blogs offer analysis. I love analysis. But I also love news. Two different things.
I would be willing to throw some money in the direction of the New York Times, but I have no desire to have all these dead trees around the house that require recycling and that, frankly, at this point are somewhat out of date by the time I read them (since they were printed hours and hours before).
I used to subscribe to the print NY Times, weekends only, student discount. It was dirt cheap -- no complaints there. But eventually I realized that the only part I was regularly reading in the physical edition was the magazine, which was glossy and nicer in some ways than reading a screen. As for the rest of the paper, it was useful for being able to read in the bathroom, but other than that had no advantages that I could see over reading the Times on the web, and plenty of disadvantages. In general I much prefer reading screens to reading newsprint.
So the problem is this. I want good news coverage. I'd even be willing to pay for it. But I don't want physical newspapers. And I don't want the New York Times to go back to TimesSelect -- I'd subscribe, but not enough other people would, so it wouldn't work. So... what's the new model?
The NYTimes offers a
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 2:43 PM PDT.
The NYTimes offers a subscription to its electronic version. This is different from their website. It contains actual images of all pages of the print newspaper. But although they are images, they are searchable (an advantage over the dead tree variety). In fact, you can search and access one year's issues. Zoomable view. And you can access it from anywhere (home, work, vacation). $175/year for 7 days a week, $88/year for Monday - Friday. Free 7-day trial.
[Couln't insert a link here, as MJ, again, gave me a CAPCHA with no box to type it into. Google "new york times electronic edition"].
It's true that you cannot get news from the blogs -- except for the posts where they link to the newspapers. The blogosphere is getting a free ride.
Very interesting - thanks!
Submitted by JR (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:16 PM PDT.
Thanks for this information! I actually did not know about the "electronic edition."
At first glance, though, I think it looks inferior to the web edition. It only comes out once a day, for starters; it'll take multiple clicks to read an article that goes over a jump page; and it lacks the videos and interactive graphics of the website. (As far as multiple clicks, that's something that really annoys me on many websites, but the NYT is helpful enough to provide a 'Single Page Format' link on all its stories. In fact, I go straight to the 'Single Page Format' of all articles by using browser tricks to add "&pagewanted=all" to all NYTimes story URLs, so I don't have to click through multiple pages to read an article -- I just scroll down.)
The Electronic Edition does offer a few things:
(1) a way to download the whole paper to read and browse offline, if you go through periods of not being connected to the internet, e.g. while commuting,
(2) a record of what page each article appeared on, and what the wording was in the "final" version, for citation purposes (this is the "paper of record," after all, and some of us cite its articles in our work), and
(3) a way to make a voluntary donation to the NY Times.
For now, I don't have much of a need for (1) or (2), and I'm not going to sign up for this thing just for (3) -- at least not now. Still, it's good to see that they're trying to come up with electronic products.
Maybe they could sell customized web browsing experiences, which let you put in preferences like 'skip to single-page format' (the same thing I do w/ a workaround), or that would highlight stories it thinks might interest you, or something like that? Or maybe they could sell a Fewer-Ads Web Edition?
Agreed on pretty much all
Submitted by DR (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 12:45 PM PDT.
Agreed on pretty much all counts JR except I'm 50 and have somehow managed to overcome the handicap of my advanced age and learned to prefer text on screen...I am VERY intrigued by this idea of going straight to the "single page" view on the NYT, can you explain how to do that for Firefox on a Mac without to much trouble, or at least tell me what to google so I can figure it out for myself?
adding pagewanted=all
Submitted by JR (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 4:06 PM PDT.
I just figured I'd take a look back at this thread, and noticed your reply. Sorry if I stopped back too late for you to see this response.
I'm typing here on a PC, but there are a variety of web browsing extensions for Firefox on the Mac that should let you make text substitutions. What you want to do is filter things that begin "http://www.nytimes.com/20[STRING].html" and append "?&pagewanted=all" to all of them.
You'll need a text substitution extension that lets you search for something with that [STRING] in the middle -- a string of unknown characters of unknown length -- how you say it depends on the software. For example, in a "regular expression"-based system you'd use .* for the string of unknown letters (because . means unknown character and * means zero or more of them). There are also non-Firefox based solutions that would allow you to do this, like Privoxy.
Good luck!
Newspapers really suck. Old
Submitted by Luther on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 2:52 PM PDT.
Newspapers really suck. Old timers like me can remember when you didn't like something you read you had to sit down and write a letter to the editor by snail mail, and it had to be a masterpiece because of the competition if your ambition was to be published. Then you'd wait and maybe they'd call to confirm you were a real person and then you'd wait and check the paper so you could cut out your masterpiece. Now we can just give 'em feedback instantly. "Thumbs up on the great blog, Kevin." If you saw an article you liked, you'd have to cut it out and file it somewhere, years later running into some fragile yellow stuff you cut out for some reason. Remember when "cut-and-paste" meant cutting paper with scissors and pasting with rubber cement?
The internet is a great improvement, especially in access to an enormous number of news sources and columnists. The only downside is really reporting, especially investigative reporting. What to do. Robert McChesney thinks government can save the news: "...McChesney makes a thorough case that American journalism took a wrong turn in the mid-19th century when newspapers resorted to advertising for revenue. They were previously largely funded by enormous government subsidies (newspapers accounted for 90% of U.S. mail in the 1830's, but thanks to subsidies they provided only 15% of mail revenue).
Democracy Needs Newspapers
Submitted by Ron Derven (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 3:32 PM PDT.
Our democracy really needs newspapers and reporters. I hope these declines level off and I hope younger, potential readers get interested in them.
Ron D
we're just going to make them irrelevant
Submitted by tpx on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 5:28 PM PDT.
From the San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/30/2009:
"Peter Phillips, director of Project Censored for 13 years, says he's finished with reform. It's impossible, he said in a recent interview, to try to get major news media outlets to deliver relevant news stories that serve to strengthen democracy.
"I really think we're beyond reforming corporate media," said Phillips, a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored. "We're not going to break up these huge conglomerates. We're just going to make them irrelevant.""
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=9212&catid=4&volume_id=398&issue_...
Seattle Times
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 6:06 PM PDT.
Yesterday and today the family-owned Seattle Times published an outstanding two-part article on the fall of Washington Mutual. This is investigative reporting as it should be, whether on paper or computer. How to pay for it?
Ultimately
Submitted by Matt (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 6:18 PM PDT.
Ultimately, won't we just have to pay for the news we read online? I believe that in the not-too-distant future we will all be paying for services like the NYT, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
I agree with JR above that news and analysis are two different things and there's no real substitute for news reporting. Analysis is great, but it isn't news. We'll just have to pay for it, eventually, when the industry transition is finished.
Less newsprint
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT.
and forest ecosystems all over the planet will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And more CO2 will be sequestered though not nearly enough.
There are other forms that will evolve to fill the niche of the newspaper as we have known it. Time will tell.
"...it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM
I get a kick out of stupid
Submitted by steve s (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:11 PM PDT.
I get a kick out of stupid people who think the ideological reason they canceled their subscription explains the entire demise of the industry. My dad's like that. When telemarketers call to try to sell him a subscription to the Gainesville Sun, he thinks he's talking to someone at the paper itself, and he proceeds to lecture some poor telemarketer about how if they weren't so damn libral maybe he Would subscribe, which is both pointless and utterly untrue. I see there's some people here who suffer similar delusions.
Anybody who studies the matter even slightly knows the real factors are the 50% decline in ad revenue over the last 5 years as advertisers moved to the more efficient internet, and the availability of free content online. Ideology has nothing to do with it. The Washington Times loses money just like the Washington Post does.
I get a kick out of stupid
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:46 PM PDT.
I get a kick out of stupid people who assume that there are no network effects in the world. The people who cancel their subscriptions for ideological reasons play at least two roles that substantially magnify their influence:
(1) Directly they tell their less ideological friends and colleagues "Why are you asting your time reading that/watching that? You should read ...'s blog if you really want to know what's going on."
(2) They tend to be the wealthier, more educated class of society, and, if they regard reading newspapers not as a sign of sophistication, but as a sign of naive gullibility, they send a message to all the strivers and wanna-be's in society that what's considered cool by this class has changed since the days when your civics teacher was telling you to read the paper every day.
Your very thesis makes no sense:
Yes, the newspapers are losing ad revenue. And this translates to losing customers how exactly?
(The direct link would be through newspapers raising prices to the point where customers are no longer interested in paying them, which is Kevin's thesis. I certainly can't speak for the rest of the country; all I can say is that has not been my experience with the LA Times, which offered ever lower subscriptions over the past few years in a desperate attempt to hold onto its eyeballs for advertisers.)
The print newspapers are
Submitted by Brett (not verified) on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:58 PM PDT.
The print newspapers are definitely on the way out - my guess is they'll be more or less dead aside from free local weeklies by 2020.
My guess is that we'll probably see newspapers start returning to what they were before the 19th century - largely subscription-based. In the 19th century they really started relying on advertising revenue, which required them to get as many readers as possible. I could see the reversal, where they shrink down to smaller stuff based around a cadre of fans plus some limited advertising targeted at them.
Yay Trees!
Submitted by MacGruber on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 6:43 AM PDT.
Think of how many trees will be saved once those liberal rags stop printing their fish-wrap.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Since the trees used to make
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 11:19 AM PDT.
Since the trees used to make newspapers are FARMED conifers, not virgin forests, why exactly is this of any practical value? If there is no longer as much demand for these trees, the land will be given over to some alternative use. Given the current world trajectory, this use is most likely biofuel feedstock, not reverting to natural forests.
This is like imagining that a world where people eat less meat is a world with more cows whereas it would actually be a world with fewer cows.
There are plenty of good environmental reasons to use less paper and pulp, whether for newspapers or otherwise --- for example making paper uses plenty of energy and generates lots of pollution.
But this sort of simple-minded "fewer papers equals more trees" is precisely the sort of childish-minded thinking that gives environmentalism a bad name.
It's the Content, Stoopid
Submitted by Cuz (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 9:44 AM PDT.
Not calling any of the commenters above stupid. Quite the opposite. Many good points here. Just wish to add one thing, from a home subscriber to NYT and SF Chronicle:
In the old days we had the inverted pyriamid style, where the five W's were packed into the led, and then lesser points were dribbled out, down the graphs to the tiniest least important points after the jump.
Today's hard news, yes even the hard news, begins with the story of X and his or her heart rending predicament, then X's life story, then X's dogs and cats. After the jump to A17 we get the ACTUAL POINT that X has been chosen to illustrate.
Many talented writers remain after the waves of layoffs, but editors expect them all to be Hemingways or Faulkners. Earth to editors: it is a news organization.
With all the competing demands for attention, editors need to get back to basics and use the led to inform the reader of the gist of the peace. Put the features in the feature section.
they may survive in New York
Submitted by Dilan Esper (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 1:14 PM PDT.
Unless and until they install wireless internet capability in the subways of New York City, I suspect there will be a big market for newspapers in that metropolitan region.
Why did I drop my newspaper
Submitted by Beige (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 5:46 PM PDT.
Why did I drop my newspaper subscription? The real driving force was that while I paid every bill, they'd...make some kind of effort to deliver the thing I'd paid for. As best I can tell they probably did mostly manage to drop the thing anonymously on the ground outdoors in public, but it quite often wouldn't be there when I woke up and went out. There was a time I'd get up extra early, dress, go out and grab the paper before it vanished, then go back to bed for another half hour. You know what? The web site is always there. I'm not paying for something that I don't even get. And I'm not getting out of bed early to attempt to hopefully maybe this morning actually get it. I know the URL.
nike af1 light up shoes
Submitted by nike (not verified) on Sat Nov. 7, 2009 9:00 PM PST.
Yes ,your article is very good, we have the same belief with you,so let me introduce
thearea to you.Now nike ,as the worldwide brand, is beloved by more and more people.Recently,i purchase a pair of Nike Men's AF1 Light-up Shoes in a online srore,they specialized in nike air force one sheos ,the air force one light-up shoes are high in quality.To buy af1 lights up shoes this time,i feel happy. because light up air force one give my feet utmost comfort.I recommend this best online store : http://www.af1star.com .
