Final answer:
The claim that newspapers have a much higher cost per contact and total cost than magazines is misleading, as the media landscape has significantly shifted towards digital platforms, affecting the advertising revenues and cost-effectiveness of both newspapers and magazines.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that newspapers have a much higher cost per contact and total cost than do magazines can be considered False, as the current trend in the industry shows a significant shift towards online platforms and digital advertising. With the advent of the Internet and digital news sources, newspapers have seen a decline in print advertising revenue, with many readers moving to free online versions and alternative news platforms. In response, newspapers have implemented digital pay plans and expanded their online presence, finding new revenue in digital ads, although not enough to completely offset the loss in print revenue. Magazines, while also experiencing a decline in audience for their print editions, have seen an increase in digital ad revenue. This suggests that the cost-effectiveness of print media advertising, both for newspapers and magazines, is being outpaced by digital alternatives.
In recent years, newspapers have had to adapt to new market conditions by cutting staff, reducing reporting, and downsizing their print editions, while magazines have also faced challenges. The decline in print readership and the increase in online news consumption suggest that going forward, digital platforms will likely be more cost-effective for reaching audiences, particularly among younger demographics. Therefore, the claim regarding the relative costs of newspapers and magazines is not an absolute and must be evaluated in the context of the evolving media landscape.