To all of the bystanders reading this, pardon us. The true audience for this essay narrows necessarily to a pair of notables who have it in their power to save high-end journalism—two newspaper executives who can rescue an imploding industry and thereby achieve an essential civic good for the nation. It’s down to them. The rest of the print journalism world is in slash-and-burn mode, cutting product and then wondering why the product won’t sell, rushing to give away what remains online and wondering further why that content is held by advertisers to be valueless. The mode is full-bore panic.
And yet these two individuals, representing as they do the two fundamental institutions that sit astride the profession, still have a card to play, and here’s a shard of good news: it’s the only card that ever really mattered. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth, publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post, are at the helms of two organizations trying to find some separate peace with the digital revolution, though both papers have largely failed to do so, damaging their own still-formidable institutions and, on a deeper level, eviscerating more vulnerable regional newspapers and newspapering as whole. Yet incredibly, they delay, even though every day of inertia means another two dozen reporters somewhere are shown the door by a newspaper chain, or another foreign bureau closes, or another once-precise and competent newsroom decides it will make do without a trained city editor, an ombudsman, or a fully staffed copy desk.
This then, is for Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth:
Content matters. And you must find a way, in the brave new world of digitization, to make people pay for that content. If you do this, you still have a product and there is still...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
"You must both also individually inform the wire-service consortiums that unless they limit membership to publications, online or off, that provide content only through paid subscriptions, you intend to withdraw immediately from those consortiums."
So wire services would no longer be allowed to provide content to TV and radio stations?
Posted by Max Brantley on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 10:30 AM
I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.
Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micropayments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place.
Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.
Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section.
Posted by Aankit on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:15 PM
Most of the folks writing about the paywall issue are assuming that because only 5-10 percent of the current online readership will sign up for web content, it will be a failure. Actually, the folks behind the paywall effort don't care if anyone signs up for online content. The entire point is to push people into print subscriptions. It could be that some newspapers or groups won't even offer an online-only option. It will just be a free giveaway with print.
Posted by Morgan Cartwright on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:23 PM
A monopoly! Exactly the right way to go - can I get some fries with that?
Posted by Wild Bill on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 01:13 PM
My issue with publishers building an interactive strategy of charging for content is that the very act of charging effectively closes the doors on any number of new interactive businesses that publishers might reasonably pursue. Charging for content is a strategy that places the survival of the existing product first and ignores the needs of businesses and consumers who might otherwise help publishers create numerous new revenue streams. Instead of thinking of the online newspaper as an end in and of itself (or as a way to support printed newspapers), think of it as the entry point into a system of interlocking new products and services. The free newspaper Web site is the aggregation magnet that brings a large audience into the system. The site then qualifies those customers for a wide variety of other products and services that meet the needs of paying business customers (e.g., lead-generation services, transaction fulfillment services, audience development and management services, and so on). If you strangle the size of your original audience by charging them (in the notion that the only business opportunity before you is porting the newspaper over to the Web), you stifle any number of opportunities down the pipeline, opportunities that are made possible by a free and easy-to-access aggregation site up front.
Posted by John Granatino on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 01:22 PM
Agree with the instinct but think the blueprint's off.
This is where I started to shake my head: "No half-measures, either. No TimesSelect program that charges for a handful of items and offers the rest for free, no limited availability of certain teaser articles, no bartering with aggregators for a few more crumbs of revenue through microbilling or pennies-on-the-dollar fees."
The problem here is the sites have vanished entirely behind the paywall -- there's no discovery of articles through search, sharing, email this, etc. The supply of new readers is cut off -- they have to understand what's inside the walled garden and want to unlock the gate. The better bet, I think, is to try and convert readers who came in for a single article into loyal repeat readers who'd pay a subscription fee.
"Link economy" and "paywall" are often seen as mutually exclusive, but I don't believe that. You can make individual articles free, but charge for the whole, benefiting from the link economy but being able to charge for subscriptions. This is essentially what the Wall Street Journal (my old employer) does, and as far as I know it's seen little erosion in subscriptions. Which seems odd, but really isn't -- you CAN assemble a day's WSJ piecemeal from free links, but unless you're a zealot or a college student, it's a much better use of your time to pay a relatively cheap price for a subscription and never again have to worry about the toll gate coming down on you. The reader drawn in by one article gets to read it, the subscriber gets convenience and the context of seeing how the articles fit together, and the goal becomes converting the former into the latter.
I don't think there's any reason this model would only work for the Journal -- I'd like to see the Times, WaPo or others try it. Alternately, you could try for the same effect by giving readers a certain number of free articles and then the toll gate comes down, as a number of sites are discussing. There are questions about how many articles, how the messaging is handled, etc., but it's another way to keep the benefits of the link economy without surrendering subscriptions.
I agree with Simon that the current situation has to change and that the NYT and WaPo can lead the way. I also disagree with many journalism thinkers that subscriptions are impossible or that WSJ is somehow a unique case. But I think a scheme that eliminates the link economy is a nonstarter.
Posted by Jason Fry on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 02:44 PM
The Morton Plan would have kicked in on July 4 but newspapers across the country couldn't get it together by then. Why do newspapers drag their feet? They have seen the future and still they hesitate.
Posted by Peter Tobia on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 01:58 AM
Please do this. Authoritative resources are being lost in the wikipedia world.One mst go around the world to find authoritative on the groud reporting. I would pay for it, no question.
Posted by Judy on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:47 AM
I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.
Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM
I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.
Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:56 AM
Fascinating. What about the big gateway sites, like Yahoo and MSN? I bet a lot of people mostly read their news on Yahoo's home page. Yahoo pays the AP,right? Is there some kind of wholesale deal possible there?
Because people DO pay for the internet. They pay their DSL or their broadband provider, they pay their cell phone bill, they pay for hardware.
I agree that no one in mass media was ready for the fact that the internet broke the advertising business model. I agree that content is valuable, but if its cost was hidden in the advertising revenue stream for so long, is there another place in the online environment that can shoulder that cost, in addition to subscriptions?
Posted by Dana Sterling on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 01:38 PM
Careful, there is a vitual generation gap separating the days of reader ownership and the current era of reader choice. People use aggregators because they want varied points of view from which to form their own opinion.
One of the few similarities the eras share might also work against a paywall model: readers/users will certainly only pay for a small number of subscriptions, if any.
Not since the 1970's have one or two newspapers been able to completely dominate a market, and ad-revenues have been on the decline as a result. The age of information distribution over the Internet then exponentially increased reader choices and likewise affected ad-revenue in absence of monopoly.
What newspapers need to accomplish for survival is to drive readers to their product. Offer better, more diverse and truly investigative journalism to serve a broader audience, be it local or world-wide. Draw readers with value, not fees.
Forget the days of reader ownership. That era died thirty years ago, and will never come back.
Posted by Rob on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 03:19 PM
If news were not free, there would be enough people willing to pay for it to cover the cost of producing it. But suppose the New York Times suddenly started charging for online access; althought it is a great newspaper, I probably wouldn't pay for it. There are just too many free alternatives that are almost as good. Even if (for example) no other online news source were as good as the Times, the remaining news sources will collectively fill the gap.
The economic parlance, you have goods which are near perfect substitutes. If I can't read Paul Krugman's column, I can go read some other noble prize winning economist's latest available(and accessible) column. Likewise, if I can't read Thomas Freidman, I can get the same kind of hype from a used car lot advertisement.
So I think, maybe, a number of major papers would have to work in concert to significantly degrade the free online news world. In other words - again in economic parlance - they might have to collude.
The news industry needs something like OPEC.
Posted by Raskalnikov on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 10:22 PM
The lack of imagination on display in this article is jaw-dropping.
If, in five years, any part of this article can be looked back upon as anything other than a completely wrong-headed assessment of the state of the industry, if a reasonable person will be able to look back from 2014 on any of the suggestions and say either, "That would have been a good thing to try" or "Thank goodness they did that," I will eat a Baltimore Orioles hat while standing naked in Times Square.
Posted by King Kaufman on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 04:13 AM
Let's see if I understand the major points here:
Only the New York Times and the Washington Post matter.
No real journalism gets done outside print newspapers.
The regional papers all stink and deserve to die.
The AP must kick out the broadcasters and dump the commercial customers, or die.
If we engineer a mass suicide by the entire newspaper industry, kill the Associated Press, strangle the broadcasters and continue to pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist, we'll ensure the perpetuation of the 1980s Washington Post-New York Times news empire so they can hire 10 reporters in St. Louis.
Did I get the gist of it?
Posted by yelvington on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 08:56 AM
No, Yelvington.
You got almost everything precisely wrong.
Posted by Ryan Chittum on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 11:04 AM
Dear Yelvington,
Why do you feel the need to "reduce" anything? How about something that has gradations and nuances and some dynamic standing on its own, without being made a sound bite for the ignorant.
I guess that's what the Internet is good for. Reduction to simple, monochromatic imagery and phrases. Congrats on rising to this new
medium's current level of unedited, unchallenged intellectual mediocrity.
Posted by homer bigart on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 01:14 PM
Newspapers don't make profit nor do they pay journalists with subscription revenue. Subscription revenues pay for printing and distribution.
Online advertising generates less revenue than print advertising because the ad sales folks don't know how to sell it. Or price it.
Revenue generated by cable television is itty-bitty peanuts for cable networks. The real revenue for cable networks is advertising.
Local television news programs realize no meaningful revenue from cable subscribers. Local news programs generate revenue with advertising. Local news programs are delivered free to our televisions. This is stunning in its similarity to the current internet news model.
Folks using the internet pay for access, just like cable viewers.
Here's one item that troubles me: The proposal that newspaper subscription revenue pays for journalism. This is false. Advertising pays salaries. What is it about journalism, and journalists, that makes their words more valuable when printed on a piece of paper than displayed on a screen?
The ideas presented are interesting in their naivete. Go ahead, try the ideas. In time those pay-only news organizations will realize someone has been drinking their milkshake.
Posted by Just Thinking on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 03:33 PM
"The ideas presented are interesting in their naivete."
-- Just thinking.
But not thinking intelligently or with any actual facts. HBO, which contains no advertising whatsoever, is the most lucrative profit center of Time Warner. Premium cable doesn't have advertising, and in any event, Comcast has become a bloated concern by delivering even basic cable for profitable subscriptions to tens of millions of households.
As to the idea the newspapers CURRENTLY do not make money on circulation -- did you not read the piece? Simon points out that this is IN THE PAST and it is exactly why newspaper execs failed to see the value in paid subscription. But in the past they made no money on subscription because of the cost of trucks, gas, printing, printers, etc. Those costs DON'T EXIST in the new digitized age of online subscription.
Simon's not looking backwards. You are -- to the old subscription model, ignoring the economic realities of the new one.
Jesus.
Posted by Homer Bigart on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 09:02 PM
Newspapers actually haven't been charging readers for the cost of creating content since the 1830s: Economics says online news, in a competitive market, must be free.
Posted by Jeff Sonderman on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 09:14 PM
The reason why newspapers are struggling now is not entirely because of a free online product and low online ad revenue. The reason newspapers are hurting is because the car industry went kerplunk.
I would guess that NY Times readership has increased since it went online. It's just waiting to find a way to capitalize on that readership. Once someone figures out a way to do that, then problem will take care of its self.
Also if NYTIMES and WP start charging we'll all just go to CNN.com. We will be less informed but we will also not have paid for something we believed should be free.
Posted by Travis on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 10:16 PM
If all newspapers dropped their online, there would be some that would subscribe. Those that seem to complain the most are those that never read past the first or second paragraphs. Good news in detail isn't written like that much any more. Is there a way in which some parts of the paper are sent out for anyone to read but to get it all online or paper one must subscribe??? I just notice how many magazines both here and in Europe give you an enticing set of three to five articles to read. If one wishes to read more, then he/she pays by credit card--here and Europe for the article or an annual subscription. I get some but I am too poor to purchase the subscription . I already have over $500 annually I pay for magazines not counting the daily NY Times. Those that I pay for I have access to all articles and to their archives. Sometimes the archives are more knowledge-giving than the present-day items. Both NY Times and Washington Post charge for archival items. I just get 100 per month free. I'm sure they don't get rich on the latter but everyone has to tighten their belts and wallets--even the ceo's and editors. So far only the writers and copyists have had their pay cut and not by a lot--esp. considering what most other workers agreed to--30%+. If these papers made it through the Depression, then they should be able to work a way to get through this recession.
Posted by Patricia Wilson on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 10:23 PM
Looks very much like this is a suggestion to build a wall that more or less like a grave.
While making the comparison between cable television and need for media to go the same route, you are ignoring one basic point - that there is a significant change in terms of the new generation whose information consumption patterns are very different from that of anyone who is 30-years or older at the moment. Ask an average 13-year-old what the NYT means for her/him and don't be surprised if they don't think much of it.
There are simple questions that need be answered:
1. Will killing free online access increase uptake of print and paid access? (no and marginally yes. No, because there are multiple sources, even on the NYT at least 70% of the content is non-unique)
2. Does this solution address the problem of the broken content production model? No.
3. Is there a different model to running a media business possible? Yes, of course, but it needs a radical rethink of how you create content and how you help the audience consume it.
Posted by Shyam Somanadh on Mon 20 Jul 2009 at 09:22 PM
Brilliant analysis! I now understand why radio and TV news charges money: If they gave it away for free, they'd go out of business!
Posted by Greg Lindahl on Mon 20 Jul 2009 at 09:36 PM
Homer Bigart. I thought you'd passed away years ago.
Have you just been hiding in someone's sock drawer?
Posted by King Kaufman on Mon 20 Jul 2009 at 09:46 PM
@Morgan Cartwright
"Actually, the folks behind the paywall effort don't care if anyone signs up for NEW MEDIA. The entire point is to push people into OLD MEDIA"
Fixed that for you.
Posted by DBL on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 01:58 AM
So high-value content should by definition carry a pricetag. That makes sense.
Just one problem. Distribution.
In the old media world, paywalls are preserved behind steep barriers to entry. Whoever owns the printing press, the transmitter, the cable that's strung from house to house controls and manages the value chain. Content creators, whether they be journalists, tv producers or disc jockeys, have no choice but to deal directly or indirectly through them. Ditto for the audience and the advertiser. The distributor mans the tollbridge extracting a price for all those who pass, whether it's content creators or advertisers hoping to reach an audience, or the audience looking for content.
But no such barriers to entry exist online. At least not yet. The content creator and the audience and the advertiser can all bypass the tollbridge. The cruel irony is that, with no one there to collect a toll, no one gets paid.
Posted by Jeff Vidler on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 05:45 AM
It's funny watching the comments become more hostile as I read down the page, as non-regular CJR readers dive in from around the internet. One of the downsides of twitter etc. is that any conversation can be quickly hijacked by a stream of people saying "I won't pay for anything," "information wants to be free" and the like. (And then the inevitable fightback with cries of "The Internet Sucks".) The comment system encourages this kind of argument, but more nuance is needed, of course.
Simon senses something which I think many newspaper people do, and evangelists for Free often don't: a free web-based newspaper is, by definition, a different beast to a print-based newspaper in terms of content. The web is ill-suited to 10,000 word articles, and its instant-sharing nature - which seems to get ever more accelerated - is ill-suited to that sort of conversation. That doesn't mean that good, interesting stuff doesn't happen in free-world, and maybe Simon doesn't give enough credit there. But the advocates of free - and I mean those who argue it *should* be the model, not those who merely argue it *will* be the model - don't seem to acknowledge the sheer investment in time and personnel this kind of in-depth journalism takes. Even if you're a huge believer in crowdsourcing you have to accept there are some things that need the professional touch. Even in the time of fast food we still cook sometimes, and people realise how satisfying it is. Similarly, even in a time of free quick-share information, some people, some of the time - probably better-off people - will always want to sit and read the paper, and will pay for the highest quality stuff. Saying "information wants to be free" ignores the fact that the best journalism offers more than information, but an experience - a story well told, etc - and that stuff can, I'm 100% certain, be charged for.
Where I'm sceptical is in regional. I've no doubt the NYT and WaPo must go this route, and I've no doubt they will. I suspect sooner or later one non-profit website will emerge in the US offering free view-from-nowhere newsto those who want to avoid the more partisan HuffPo media. But my gut tells me people won't pay for a local newspaper in addition to a national - and make no mistake, if the NYT and WaPo go this route, they will need to nationalise and internationalise themselves fast. If your growing revenue stream is from paying subscribers, you need, at minimum, a version of your site which sidelines the local content for them to use. If you're subscribing to (say) the Economist and NYT online for $20 a month, are you going to pay another $10 for local news?
Posted by Rav Casley Gera on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 08:28 AM
Fabulous analysis. Have one suggestion.
The analysis is fabulous because David Simon reports on the behind the scenes transformation in business management drivers in media and other markets (e.g. detroit). Like the writer, I've experienced the days when product development and sales were the drivers for managing business. Today financial performance is the driver. When the latter dominates the former, the result is mediocrity and tricky business models to derive revenues. It is time to invest in producing a product everyone is proud to make, sell, and buy.
Also, Simon's credibility is high due to his participation in the premium cable market. Subscription levels and profits are at all time highs in 4th qtr 2008, even during the peak of an economic crisis. This is a clear message from consumers which all media should listen carefully to. Do not underestimate what consumers will pay for quality.
My suggestion. A 5 page article allows the author to truly analyze the problem, doesn't it? This is a competitive advantage. Free news TV and talk radio don't have the time to cover news so comprehensively. Bloggers don't have the resources for comprehensive research and analysis. Consider how comprehensive coverage - among other features enabling real time interactivity from anywhere and quality control - would transform audience interactivity from chaotic to rewarding conversations. Such satisfying conversations and the potential collateral benefits (chance to connect with like-minded people) would sustain a premium subscription base.
Katherine (at) comradity.com
Posted by Katherine Warman Kern on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 08:30 AM
Newspapers were the only collective up to date source of information before the web. The only reason you are still selling newspapers is because there are still people that have not discovered how to use the web.
Who would have paid to be able to contribute to this blog?? and the ones who do not even know it exists..?(they read newspapers).
I no longer need to get my movie sports etc infor from the newspaper. I get the "news"(information) directly from the supplier when I want it.
It is no longer possible to read only newspaper snippets and have an intelligent conversation with a teenager and expect you will be the better educated person in the conversation.
CHANGE your CONTENT to point to the web. Do not try and tell me your half of the story as the whole. Get me interested and point me to where I get the best educated, independant viewpoints. Summarise, investigate and report on the information avilable and being created on the WWW.
Not all people have a hunger for information and many will read only a yahoo summary page. Imagine a 70 year old newspaper reader telling his son what happened on Facebook today by reading the newspaper. Select and reduce information and ceate a "Push to Pull" medium.
The distribution channels need to distribute product as well. Deliver my order with my newspaper tomorrow morning.
Reading your laptop while on the toilet... just does not sound right.
Reading a morning newspaper in the sun with some coffee will remain a loved routine.
It is time for the new Print Masters.
Posted by Francois Stemmet on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 08:47 AM
This really is an excellent input to the ongoing discussion. While I agree on many points, I disagree with the idea that separate subscription models for news sites will work, even if there's an arrangement between them. I also strongly believe that we need to differentiate between news and what goes beyond and truly makes for unique journalism (reportages, interviews, analyses, columns, etc). As only the latter has the kind of value that can be sold on the internet.
Just yesterday, I have written a piece to give my humble input to the discussion: An iTunes for news? Try Spotify for beyond-news. http://www.davidbauer.ch/2009/07/20/an-itunes-for-news-try-spotify-for-beyond-news.
Posted by David Bauer on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 10:03 AM
"I know that content wants to be free on the Internet." David Simon channeling Chris Anderson - worst day of my life.
Posted by jonryan on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 07:54 PM
Air jordan
Air jordan sneaker
Posted by jiaying on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 04:22 AM
I've worked as an editor and reporter at newspapers for close to a quarter century. For the past 20 years or so I have sat in various meetings with the people who wear ties every day and work in the part of the building where the carpet is thick. The buzz terms were always the same: "Shorter stories," "less content," "reader friendly," "news you can use," "focus groups." It didn't matter if it was The Washington Post, Newsday, or my current address, Back Stage, a trade publication covering the entertainment industry. The message was always the same. "Less content and fewer people will increase our profits, and by extension, value." Except it was never, ever true. Whatever the circulation and revenue numbers were at the previous meeting, they were invariably lower at the next. But the buzz terms never changed. The Internet is a major factor, perhaps the dominant one, in newspapers' demise. However, I posit that it is the thinking and the approach of the tie-wearing, thick-carpet crowd that has brought us to this place. I posit that these people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Me, I know nothing about price points and pay walls and the ratio of online ad dollars to print ad dollars and the effects of Craigslist, Twitter, and the fragmentation of the audience. (Okay, I know a teeny bit, but not enough to comment with any authority.) What I do know is that over the past 20 years, the language never changed, the strategies never changed, and neither did the downward slope of the revenues. Bravo, Mr. Simon, for daring to say that the things we choose to value, and our inherent values, need to be reexamined. Perhaps going against the grain of received wisdom will help us do that.
Posted by Andrew Salomon on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 11:30 AM
I'm not sure I understand Mr. Simon's argument that advertising to a subscription based audience would be worth more than a much larger non-paying audience.
Could someone jump in and explain?
Posted by ChrisWWW on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 02:30 PM
To ChrisWWW - I'm sure Mr. Simon believes that those who have paid will be more likely to support the advertising than those who just surfed by, even if the numbers imply something else.
It seems to me that Mr. Simon is advocating paying for the newspaper experience, and I am for that. I think he means the comfortable chair, the cup of coffee, maybe even a cigarette, then slowly turning the pages of the local newspaper...all the things that make reading the pulp dropped on your doorstep a unique experience. You can read the national and regional news, then see what local journalists think about all of it, how they report local reaction and events related to it, then you can take a moment to glance at the local team scores and highlights, local features, and local advertising. Focused content and professional local reporting, all for a reasonable online subscription fee.
But why should I have to pay or bump into a wall online when I want to read a reprint of an AP article in an online paper? Why should I have to subscribe to read a local article about one of my favorite subjects in a far away newspaper that holds no interest for me beyond the one subject? A full wall only isolates the content and drives a diminishing group of readers. Let me in to sample the content, and if I find myself coming back for more, steer me to the paid online newspaper experience.
Technology, aggregation, and summaries all have a place in facilitating interest in and support of newspaper content while producing a workable financial model where newspapers can thrive and serve their local communities.
Posted by Jim King on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 05:03 PM
This is brilliant. The Post and the Times need to do this.
Anyone who has studied this issue will recognize the boldness of Simon's solution.
Posted by John Patterson on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 09:04 PM
Has there ever been a more classic case of pissing in the wind? It’s comedic/tragic value is exquisitely enhanced by the author’s flailing awareness of the very fact. A magnificent monument to 21st century luddism that should be preserved for posterity.
Posted by Came Down in Last Shower on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 09:56 PM
Every time I start to complain about having to pay for something on the Internet, I gently try to remind myself that I paid $1.99 to download a game to my iPhone.
Good lord, I crave well-thought, well-written, and insightful journalism. Not news. What passes for news today is to journalism what poison ivy is to a flower bed. Please, intended audience of this essay, read it and listen.
Posted by Dave on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 10:24 PM
I read a chunk of it, but I have two problems with it:
1) It's just too darn long, which speaks to a problem that has plagued print journalism for years. Too many writers think every word is golden. Cut it. In half.
2) This sentence - "While their resentment and frustration with newspapers—given the industry’s reduced editorial ambitions—are justified, their reasoning and conclusions are not." I resent the comment that newspapers' "editorial ambitions" are reduced. I am reminded of the writer who wrote to me at The Flint Journal and wondered "why are you doing this to us?" As a 20-year veteran of newspapers, it tore my heart out to know that I was part of the end of a 150-year-old tradition. My "editorial ambitions" are in no way reduced and I resent that you would write it. I am going to give the you the benefit of the doubt - you probably meant to say something like "editorial inabilities," but I find that inexcusable, particularly at this level.
Posted by Bryan Laviolette on Wed 22 Jul 2009 at 10:53 PM
Yes, content does matter. Five years ago I was quite surprised to see 3 19-year-old girls take it in turns over a weekend to read my Weekend Sydney Morning Herald from cover to cover! Their behaviour went against everything I'd heard and so I wonder if the decline of journalism is due to a lack of quality content, the incesant sections within sections of what remains (diluting the 'brand') and poor distribution?
Posted by Patrick G on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 03:54 AM
I fully agree with David Simon.
The big dogs of journalism must act soon and decisively if they want to save the virtues and quality that define the very notion of their profession.
I'd really rather pay for a good, interesting, unbiased, informative, product of journalism than read amateur bloggers who jot down a few sentences and then cover half of the screen with screaming advertisements.
Posted by Nerijus on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 08:10 AM
This is an incredibly stupid idea and would likely be the final nail in the coffin for the newspaper industry.
The problem should be handled through a more proactive advertising model to sell the idea of wider distribution of ads through the Internet, supported by a technological model that both tracks the free-floating readership of the content (as opposed to counting hits to the newspapers web-server) while ensuring advertisements are bundled with the content as it is freely distributed, thereby:
a) providing a means to quantify the actual circulation of freely distributed content as it floats through the Net (think of defining one's circulation in terms of readership as a story and an ad are touched as they are passed along from one blog to the next)
and
b) ensuring that advertisements are bundled with the content to so that advertisers know their advertisements are indeed reaching the same audience as the content that is "cannibalized" by other content providers, parasitic hosts, etc.
Aren't advertisers more willing to pay for advertising for something that is distributed freely and therefore more widely?
In other words, the business model should be focused on redefining advertising and online distribution practices to expand readership through the Internet (not just on your poorly configured web server) and selling the product based on this expanded readership, not on preventing readers from accessing content (including stories AND ads).
The trick is selling this idea to advertisers and then implementing it, not this "charge for access to your website" or "make the news hyper-local" and all that other nonsense.
And, oh yeah, to do this, the newspaper industry better take out some big loans from the government so they can hire some decent IT people to help them do this, not to mention rehire all the reporters they fired and start producing some decent news-oriented content, and stop with all this fluffy hyper-local community crap that no one cares about reading.
Posted by Petey Greene in Purgatory on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 10:26 AM
@ Rav Casley Gera:
You are correct in your observation about the increasing stridency of tone with each new posting. In fact, nearly 20 years ago, Internet rights advocate Mike Godwin coined an adage governing this behavior (now called Godwin's Law): "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In all the intervening years, I have seen this law proven again and again.
Posted by John Granatino on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 12:20 PM
Chittum and Bigart say I drew the wrong points out of this article, but fail to explain what the right points are. I'm sticking with my analysis, and as a journalist from flyover country, find the whole thing offensively arrogant.
As for the HBO example -- if you want to make money directly from readers by doing long-form journalism, you have a perfect tool already: the book. Have at it.
Posted by yelvington on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 05:06 PM
And on his second pass Mr. Yelvington reveals himself more ridiculous than previously assumed.
The time frame for publishing a book makes it irrelevant for the acquisition, publication and dissemination of NEWS. The danger of Inernet Uber Alles advocates is they really don't know how much they don't know about what journalism actually is. News must be transmitted rapidly, accurately and with sufficient sophistication so that readers know what is happening shortly after it happens. And news has always been paid for -- from home subscriptions, to newsstand sales. Only in the last decade has that changed -- and that change is not making the product better, but worse. The newspapers are gutting themselves without a revenue stream and the internet is full of half-assed ponitificating of the Yelvingtonesque variety in which everything is reduced to flippant, unthinking idiocy. At what point in the modern history of humankind has journalism and a free press been achieved by the long-term publication of long-form texts? Yet here he comes, suggesting exactly that as a solution. Nice. We'll all get a book down off the shelves to explain what the hell happened in American society and the body politic yesterday. Good Lord.
Posted by Homer Bigart on Thu 23 Jul 2009 at 08:47 PM
There's another way of looking at the relation of content to revenue, but it requires rethinking - reenvisioning, actually - the way the for-profit Internet is currently configured. A rather informal presentation here:
http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/fuck-piper.html
Posted by Tom Matrullo on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 10:18 AM
Here is the point of view of someone who wants to pay to read the NY Times online: the Times has so far done nothing but antagonize me and no doubt lots of others.
Their offering, the NY Times Reader has been an abysmal joke. The list with what's wrong with it is endless. At first Macintosh users were ignored completely, even though study after study has shown, that Mac users are much more willing to pay for online content than their PC using brethren. Then it was released using Microsoft's proprietary Silverlight, which had to be installed to the NY Times Reader work -- slow, buggy, etc. Then, instead of learning from their mistake, for version 2.0 of the Reader, instead of releasing a native application, they simply switched to another proprietary emulator Adobe Air -- slow, buggy, etc.
This is only part of the problem. The main problem is the Digital Rights Management (DRM). If you download one or many articles for free from nytimes.com, they are yours to keep forever, to read on ANY device you choose, be it your smartphone or desktop computer. If you pay, on the other hand the articles will self destruct in 7 days and are not readable on your phone -- only on devices that run Adobe Air. Tell me again why any sane individual would want to pay for this?
The only way for the NY Times (or any other paper) to be worth paying for in electronic form if it is sold in a DRM free open standard (like HTML) or at the very least a universally supported proprietary one like PDF (unprotected), so it can be read on both stationary and mobile devices of the customer's choice, can be kept for ever, and yes an article or two can even be emailed to mom. In doing so it just preserves what the print edition gives you -- for instance I often read the NY Times magazine months later when I'm on vacation or otherwise have more time.
Unfortunately given the experience with the NY Times Reader so far, I fear that if the Times and Post go to a pay model they will adopt a user hostile approach. The fact that Mr. Simon's article doesn't even take into consideration the potential customers into consideration is another bad sign.
Posted by Ted Todorov on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 03:13 PM
I'd be glad to pay a subscription; hell, I pay subscriptions toward my TV bill to watch English football, and I would be glad to pay for my newspaper online as well. I don't work for free, why should any person think they should receive for free the work of tireless professional journalists? This whole internet fantasy has all the value and charm of a letter addressed to Santa Claus. Pay up, America, and grow up, too!
Posted by Richard Steele on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 06:18 PM
I find some of these comments really just off the charts laughable, but I'm not going to pick favourites since unprovoked ad hominem on the internet is just so 90s :)
I like a great deal of what the author has written. I have witnessed what feels like an assassination of journalism for way too long. What's going on in Detroit broke my heart and what I'm seeing here in Canada now is just as bad.
I'd like to avoid addressing the pay-wall solution in part because while the micropay alternative is more attractive I don't know that it will be the solution, but neither do I think a blank pay-wall will be either.
Just addressing the content is key portion of the article, I could not agree more. In depth and really considered analysis on local and national issues combined with multi-part investigative pieces; that's what I grew up on and it is sadly increasingly ew and far between, or with some local papers that are now worth no more than the transit 'free papers' entirely absent. The rush to print ill-considered pieces easily ignored, or filler advertorial style consumer gadget/auto/consumer item reviews has got me pulling my eyes out, someone find an answer.
Posted by K on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 08:52 PM
"You must act. Together."
I'm sure the last two horse-and-buggy shops said the same thing to each other. ;-)
Posted by John.B on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 01:00 AM
Oh my gosh, this is so wrong in so many ways ... and they are all the ways in which the old-media industry has shot itself not just in the foot but in so many other body parts as well.
The writer clearly has zero understanding of what is really going on in the new-media world in terms of - YES, my dear, it's JOURNALISM. Your perception of those of us who publish in blog format is the reason why I unfortunately have to go around trying to disassociate myself with the B-word - you all think "blog" = opinion, and throw in fluffy words like "froth" to seal your deal.
Got news for you - LOTS of news. Hundreds of us around the country are producing quality neighborhood-level local news in blog format. Some of us are veteran old-media journalists (30 years on my resume) and some are learning on the job. But we're serving our communities in ways they never were being served before - and allowing them into the conversation. No more is news to be delivered from stone tablets high on the mountain - "it's news if we tell you it's news."
I busted a story wide open last week that started with neighbors asking questions about a city project that seemed to be retracing its steps. I know from my old media days that those neighbors used to call and e-mail TV stations and newspapers - and never got an ear, let alone somebody willing to follow up on their concerns. They do now. Hundreds of us. And this is not "citizen journalism" - we are professionals, partnering with not only our communities, but other journalists. I pay freelance contributors, the ranks of whom currently include a fine veteran journalist who lost her job when one of the local newspapers went online only.
And we are succeeding with the advertising-based model - the one you all bemoan now that just doesn't pay any more - because we are not overcharging our customers, like you did with your print customers for so many years.
Get over the whining that the advertising model doesn't work any more. Old-media organizations decided to charge too little for online advertising but it's a mistake they can reverse. And your line about "meaningless Web hits" is laughable. For one, it's pageviews. For two - explain to me why someone reading a Web page is worthless, when I assume you would not say the same thing about someone leafing through a newspaper that will shortly be on its way to the recycling bin?
There's plenty of work for professional journalists serving their communities. But because the large organizations have done so much so wrong for so long, many of us are now building our own organizations and crafting our own jobs. Entrepreneurialism is tiring but I've never done anything more fulfilling in my life than truly feel like I'm serving my community. It insults me and hundreds of other hard-working independent journalists around the country to infer that only the legacy media organizations are capable of doing that.
Posted by Tracy in W. Seattle on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 02:50 AM
Every time it looks like the old print dinosaurs might have a hope of survival (albeit in a radically altered form) someone like this comes along and indicates they are totally, and deservedly, doomed. Nothing will kill the NYT and the WP faster than erecting paywalls. They won't get 5% or 10% of online readers taking up online subs, they'll get
Look, the bottom line is newspapers as we have known them are finished. Done. Over. Becoming extinct. The economic model they used is obsolete and nothing can bring it back. Classified ads are gone forever and the overhead they supported is gone with them. It's time to look for other approaches, stop trying to preserve the dead. Journalism is valuable and needs support, newspapers are obsolete, it's that simple.
The future for written journalism is, probably, lots of small, specialised blog-like news sites that each reader stitches together into their own unique "news feed" with RSS readers and the like. Essentially it's what most online readers are doing already but more so. Everyone's personal news feed will be unique and constantly evolving - a combination of popular widely known sites for mainstream local and national politics, and more specialised sites for areas that interest them in particular - foreign news for specific regions, war news sites, science and tech news, crossword and cartoon sites, opinion pieces, etc.. Each site will be small (compared to today's national papers), mostly staffed by actual journalists producing copy, ad financed, and free to read. There will be a lot of them to choose from. Thousands if we're lucky, hundreds if we're not.
Essentially, if you're currently a working journalist you're probably okay, if you're management on a newspaper you'd better start looking for another line of work. If you're a newspaper mogul... well, have you played the back nine at Pebble Beach recently?
Posted by David S. on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 08:38 AM
@ John Granatino re: Godwin's Law
The only person who brought up Nazis or Hitler was *you*. Kind of a new take on the old "self fulfilling prophesy", wouldn't you say?
Posted by John.B on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 09:58 AM
Oh what pompous, long-wined whining! Take a peek out of your navel and observe the facts man! Despite your opinions, you are being told daily by the market (the most fair-minded, non-BS-ing jury there is) that your so called "high-end" journalism is not valued as "high-end"! People log on and buy toy unicorns and lawn gnomes by the thousands on the internet every single day but they won't pay dollar one for your "high-end" journalism. The jury has spoken. It's supply and demand. The internet, the "information superhighway" to coin a phrase, has opened the floodgates to information and with increased suppliers of (often identical) information the value (and price) of that information drops accordingly.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that more and more of the printed paper is not local stories but AP or Reuters news? Maybe it has to do with the fact that your competition for local news is local tv which is and always has been "free" and a picture's worth a thousand David Simon bloviations? Maybe it has to do with the fact that so much of local news is pure nonsense human interest stories. If I want that I'll watch Oprah!
Ironically, in your plea to the newspapers, you stumble on the real problem and promptly ignore it. So much for journalist instincts. After stating that "content matters" and then giving the example of cable tv you fail to put 2 and 2 together. The cable model is that content does matter and the cable company is the aggregator of that content. It buys content based on what its customers deem valuable. HBO, ESPN, MHz, NatGeo etc. are content providers. They leave distribution to the cable companies. And yet, you want the newspapers to still be in the delivery business even though you state that it is the content that is of value! Get out of the delivery business!
Your problem will then be, however, that if it is local content that sets local papers apart from national papers, then local news must be worth paying for. It no doubt is, at some price. But not at $10/month. No way. The model needs to be that sites like Google, Yahoo, or even RSS applications, let people create their own newspaper. The news aggregator site will pay the local news content provider based on demand for that news source. The user will mix the local content into their virual paper along with the AP content. The less people choose to select the local content, the less demand for it, the lower the price the aggregator pays for it. Very much like cable tv.
It is in fact you, Mr. Simon, who is the buggy salesman in this little play. Pity the buggy maker. Relish the lucky consumer.
Posted by Mike G on Sun 26 Jul 2009 at 04:37 PM
The reason NO ONE will pay for news is because print editors and reporters have killed the medium with their terrible writing -- "impacted," "presser," and "newser" are three horrid additions forced on the public lexicon -- and the fact that they didn't report ten years of wars, nor "reported" the financial and housing meltdown, nor are reporting on America's infrastructure crisis, nor will they report on healthcare.
But by Jove I can read in depth every time Sarah Palin empties her trash or another D-list celebrity dies from drugs or about Michelle Obama's latest fashion -- NONE of which any of us care about paying for.
Posted by zaine_ridling on Sun 26 Jul 2009 at 08:09 PM
Interesting.
I mean about running this article in CJR.
Because it would put CJR out of business.
Posted by Benedict@Large on Sun 26 Jul 2009 at 09:18 PM
david has to read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/pay_walls
Posted by judson on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 04:14 PM
Unfortunately people like Simon are at the whim of others. They need to be content only providers but they aksi need certain mechanisms in place that don't quite exist in order to be just content providers. The technology exists, but no one is convinced they can make money at it.
They need an aggregator like Google or Yahoo etc. to pay them for a story per view. It would be out there for free until a certain threshold and after so many views the aggregator would start paying the source per view.
But the aggregator needs to have a SUBSCRIPTION based news service, not the free ones they have now (otherwise fraud comes into play with authors viewing stories to get past the threshold!) Readers aren't going to go a la cart, story by story. But they won't pay $10/month for local journalism either. Which is why they pay the aggregator and get all sorts of sources for the $10.
Similarly, the aggregator would ideally give a score based on # of views plus some qualitative ranking from readers. That could come into play for the equation that figures out how much the source gets.
Either way, newspapers need to cut costs and focus on one thing - content. No printing presses. No delivery trucks. No phantom union employees.
Posted by Mike G. on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 07:21 PM
I've put some additional, related thoughts here:
http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/haque-and-doc-on-news-evolution-and.html
Posted by Tom Matrullo on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 05:04 PM
Newspaper companies run a business, and businesses need to make money. They need to cut cost and/or find other revenue sources to stay in business. There are news websites that offer premium contents for paid subscription, such as Wall Street Journal. But a large percentage of the contents are free because there won't be enough visiting to generate any meaningful money through advertisements otherwise. In other words, free contents act as "search engine optimization" to bring in traffic from search engines as well as getting repeat visitors. Balancing the two (paid vs. free), with system in place to measure revenue and cost in real-time will separate the survivors and those headed for extinction.
Posted by Phil on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 05:11 PM
Print newspapers are not selling the news. The news is not the product. It never has been the product.
The product is "the opportunity to read the news." The opportunity to savor the story, to read and re-read it, to pause and reflect in the process of reading it.
The means of presenting the product is "good writing." "Good" is relative to the reader.
Newspapers, including the Times and the Post need to learn how to sell their product, which is ostensibly "good writing." They don't do this. If they can learn how to sell "good writing" and "the opportunity to read" good writing, they will survive. If they don't, they won't.
When was the last time you saw a sustained marketing campaign that addressed "good writing" and "the opportunity to read" content? I don't mean the occasional referral that this or that writer has won a Pulitzer. Such referrals have neither been campaigns nor sustained.
As long as consumers see no distinction between free news and the opportunity to read well written stories, printed newspapers will continue to lose readers. There is a vital distinction between these two products. Now you have to learn how to go out and sell it.
Posted by Richard Lurye on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 06:13 AM
@Richard Lurye
I disagree to a large extent. "Good writing" could just as easily (and perhaps be better with) fiction. Their selling information. The "good writing" is the wrapper, the nice box, the fancy bow. The distninguisher between the NYT and the Picayune Post when they are both reporting on a health care bill or homelessness etc.
The problem with newspapers being anything but content providers is now they have a shell to fill each and every day, new or no news. They have to have something for "Metro", for "Style", for "Sports" because they have to have the advertising acreage out there. But that works against itself. If the news is just trimming around the money making advertising then quality suffers and after a lag, advertising suffers. This starts the death spiral they are in now. No money for reporters means no good news articles means no space for advertising.
Writing is a main distinguisher on longer investigatory pieces, which is exactly what content will generate the money. They need to be able to not expend resources on garbage "Metro" news and take the time for the more in-depth articles.
Just my $.02.
Posted by Mike G. on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 08:49 AM
Naturally in writing about good writing I put some type-O's in there ;) Sorry. Late for work!
Posted by Mike G. on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 08:52 AM
The online "Print Edition" is the best part of online newspapers -- many people who grew up reading the actual newspaper are more comfortable with the idea of a "single news day" rather than parsing a front page that updates continuously. We enjoy the editor choosing the most important headlines (w/ single-day granularity) to present to us on the front-page of each section -- this is a big part of what the editors are for -- they are filters for people who don't want to read every story that pops up on the wire throughout the day.
If the major papers made the online "Print Edition" a focal point, and if it were formatted similar to the actual print paper, this may be a way to finally make online papers profitable... Charge for a traditionally formatted daily edition of the paper that includes features, columns, & editorials, but keep a free lightweight site available that constantly updates local & national news (similar to MSNBC.com and CNN.com but with a local flavor). Nobody has tried this before (definitely different than NY Times current attempts to create a pay wall) -- the closest parallel would be the "Kindle Edition" of the LA Times, NY Times, etc -- but this concept makes the daily available on all computers and portable devices.
Posted by Tim McIntire on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 01:22 PM
@Tim McIntire
A great example of what you discuss is Investor's Business Daily. They charge for both paper and internet version of the paper. The internet version looks exactly like the pape version (Flash or PDF) but the added bonus is the interactives that come with the internet version. Any symbol you pause over brings up a 3 month graph and some stats. A few more clicks and you see detailed analysis of the stock.
Posted by Mike G. on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 07:06 PM
Maybe charging for online content will elevate the intellectual integrity of the comment streams on their chatboards. Perhaps there will be enough revenue for them to pay someone to moderate the comments. When people have to pay for something, as opposed to trolling from Twitter, et al. the garbage will be left where it belongs -outside, in the dumpster.
Posted by Marcy Webb on Wed 29 Jul 2009 at 09:04 PM
I'm finally starting to notice a common thread after months and months reading articles such as this excellent CJR piece and the ensuing reader comments. It's this: when people read a printed newspaper, they find it more enjoyable than reading a news web site (the "I like to read it over coffee" meme), even though they know the printed paper is less useful (content is dated, no reader comments, no links to additional information, only one source [i.e., that paper's publisher]).
Now if the tactile experience of reading a print newspaper could be captured digitally, I'd pay for that and I suspect many others would as well. But the devices we have now (iPod Touch, Kindle, laptop PC) don't do it for me. I wouldn't pay to read certain content on those devices, because the experience I get doesn't warrant a payment. I like to read print newspapers, but I don't like to read my Touch. But I do like that my Touch is more current than any newspaper, and that I can view any number of newspapers interchangeably on it.
An economist would say I'm already sacrificing some utility by reading a digital device, and imposing an additional sacrifice (a payment) would only force me to the next best alternative, whether it's buying a printed but outdated newspaper on the one hand, or reading less "credible" but free Web-based reporting on the other. Previous paywall experiments have more or less borne that out.
So I really believe that newspapers are stuck right now between two flawed media: enjoyable but obsolete newsprint, and versatile but aesthetically limited digital devices. Consumers are saying they don't want to pay for either medium, because the virtues of each also expose the flaws of the other. Newspapers are, for lack of a better word, unlucky to be newspapers.
Someone may pipe up and say, "Well, we're talking about how excellent news content is paid for, not about aesthetics." But you can't separate those arguments, because we're talking about reading here, not about having pure content somehow magically imprinted on our brains. Reading is partly an aesthetic experience, isn't it?
Create a digital device that mimics the print newspaper experience, and you win, hands down. That's where the time and money should be spent, not on new and clever ways to extract micropayments.
Posted by Bob Stein on Thu 30 Jul 2009 at 12:51 PM
Oh god, please make this happen. I can't pay the NYTimes right now even if I wanted to (and I do, and I've tried), unless I want a hunk of dead tree on my doorstep (I don't).
Posted by igor47 on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 03:19 PM
One admittedly major tweak to Simon's suggestion:: Set up an industry clearinghouse that keeps track of retrieval of articles by individual account. Rather than traditional subscriptions, readers would maintain an account w/the clearinghouse, debited for each article retrieval.
This clearinghouse could also be the entity that protects copyright interests on the behalf of the newspaper industry.
This scheme would avoid re-Balkanizing readership by unnecessarily forcing readers into title-specific pigeonholes, would avoid forcing them to pay for much content they don't use, while at the same time ensuring that revenues flow to newspapers doing the most relevant work for readers.
Posted by Doug Bostrom on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 06:27 PM
Unfortunately I think Mr Simon has the issue around the wrong way. It is not the flagship newspapers with an international standing that need to lead the way, rather the smaller smaller market papers. The Times and Post will always be insulated by interest from overseas, previously a market that with limited exposure to the mastheads.
Whichever plan they choose, online subscriptions, abadoning the print edition entirely or investing more resources in the website to attract greater advertising will likely work. They are big enough and have a large enough audience to make it happen in some form. Whichever path they choose, revnue will be there, it's just a question of how much.
The second scenario suggested by Mr Simon doesn't hold water. Mr Simon neglects to account for the costs of internet hosting, administration and legal fees. It also doesn't account for the fact that people are less regional online, with interest in local news declining.
Also, another important question to consider is not the medium the content is delivered in, but what the content is.
Aside from government, newspapers are the last industry to try to provide all possible content that could interest every individual from their region be they aged 8 or 80.
Editors and managers are scared to drop the funny pages or bridge results lest it reduce circulation by 100.
Perhaps the model will be in specialised reporting areas. This model would see for example a specialised court reporting service, where a newsagency covers the most interesting cases and legal issues in a national service.
Or publishers could move toward either more streamlined papers, where a tabloid only offers news and sport or a broadsheet politics and business.
Posted by David Stockman on Sun 9 Aug 2009 at 11:18 PM
newspapers are the last industry to try to provide all possible content that could interest every individual from their region be they aged 8 or 80.
http://www.cheapclothesshop.com air jordan
Posted by cheapclothing on Mon 31 Aug 2009 at 11:28 PM