Nothing Is Free
Late last year, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.‘s chairman and chief executive, said “Good journalism is an expensive commodity.” It’s well-known that anyone getting into journalism doesn’t necessarily do so for the money. It ain’t good.
Still, I disagree with Murdoch in that the future of news requires readers to pay for it. Maybe for specialty publications, but not for the everyday news—especially online. Why are news producers still having trouble with this?
The big, old syndicated conglomerates are on the way out. While the Internet is shrinking the world, newspapers, it appears, might be going back to focusing on the local community.
Thoughts?
About Mark Bauer
The University of Texas at Arlington—My grandpa wanted me to be an accountant, but I don’t have the attention span. Journalism lets me pursue answers to honest questions, lets me play a role in developing a community and gives me an excuse to wear jeans to the office.
Despite what the naysayers say, journalists will always have a place in society. I’m not married to newspapers, just as I’m not married to online publications. Journalists should use whatever tools are most effective in their community and be willing to adapt to what the consumer demands. The most successful future will be pioneered by those willing to change and deviate from a model that is ineffective and obsolete in their community.
5 Responses
Mark,
Thoughtful post and thoughtful bio. I like it.
As for your post, I have a hard time envisioning how news providers will prosper when the most vital part of what they do is given away free. In our society, we take for granted how much we really rely on the work newspapers do. I heard a report last week that about 75 percent of all new information comes from newspapers — other media then take it and respond, editorialize, expand and tweak what newspapers give them. How can a society take something they depend so much on and not pay for it?
We willing pay for water, electricity and food. We even willingly pay $3 a gallon for gas and millions pay phone bills in the range of $75 in order to get data packages in order to receive information at their finger tips. Well, that information originates from newspapers. Why aren’t we willing to pay $10 or $20 a month for access to that information?
If newspapers stop reporting, writing and editing, then we have a lot to lose. To me, it’s not so much the format we receive it in buy the content we receive. I’m willing to pay.
Fox,
Thanks for the response. I’ve wrestled with the idea of paying for content (subscribing to an online publication, for example), but ultimately I think there’s a better way. Even when newspapers thrived, the bulk of the operation was paid for by advertisers. The $1.25 used to pay for a newspaper only puts a dent in the overall operating costs. I’m not revealing anything groundbreaking—that’s something we learn in media 101.
Maybe I’m ignorant and naive, and I’m willing to admit that — but I think news can continue to be paid for by advertisers, even in a digital age. We as journalists, and poor businessman, have refused to change. We lagged behind in getting on the Internet bandwagon, and now we’re lagging behind in figuring out how to increase online advertising revenue. Every other niche web site can figure it out, but not journalists.
The discussion is good and necessary. I haven’t ruled out charging for subscriptions, but I’m still pushing for a new business model that will reshape how we view the journalism industry. There again, maybe I’m just naive.
I would certainly charge for a subscription in order to receive news. With the future of the newspaper industry, why not? I believe newspapers are a necessary part of society and democracy. It’s crucial.
Some things worth considering:
A Pew Research study about one American city (Baltimore) showed that 95% of the news in that city originated with the daily newspaper. They have the time, contacts, resources, people and institutional memory. This is true in most places with the possible exception of local hamlets covered by highly overworked bloggers.
Online advertising, largely due to the ease of information theft, but also due to an ‘expectation of free’ and the death of banner ads in the late 90’s and studies that consistently show online ads are for the most part ignored or overlooked, is worth 1/10th to 1/40th that of print advertising. There’s no “figuring out” to be done. The simple truth is that online ads in and of themselves are not a high value product. With cost per thousand rates that run between 15 cents and 15 dollars even at the high end it’s not enough to support a robust news gathering operation.
For larger news organizations I believe it will boil down to a value equation like this:
Fast Twitch news ie; Michael Jackson is dead! will continue spread through the facebook and twitterverse rapidly. There’s no copyright on simple factual information. That level of news “production” is already so splintered so as to have less significance to a news organization’s bottom line EXCEPT for those that have cultivated a reputation as news breakers ala TMZ.com.
Slow Twitch news ie; A look back at the whole season for the New Orleans Saints analyzing the most critical moments that lead to them going to the Superbowl with exclusive photos and video…This kind of news will be worth paying for. It will be protected from deep linking. It will be contained within proprietary formats (think iPad) and any non authorized copying or use will be vigorously litigated (think Napster). It will be behind a paywall.
Smaller news organizations will have to move toward a citizen journalism/blogger type model that involves a kaleidoscope of organizations (the secretary of the chamber of commerce) and part time photographers and people sending in tips and photos. Ads will still need to be sold (DIY ad tools will never get that much traction…businessmen are too busy)..but smaller mom and pop news outlets can survive. Today many of them simply parrot and credit ie; KTLA is reporting that a red tide is in effect on all beaches south of Manhattan Beach. The item might have literally been overheard on the TV in the background. But for small news blogs this constitutes news.
Television and radio have done for years but they have taken a more formalized approach citing “Our News Partner” prior to reading the item from the paper. More local news blogs will form these kinds of partnerships but will never replace the scale, scope and reach of a major daily newspaper. Those that think they will simply do not understand the news ecosystem very well. Imagine a press conference without major news organizations.
The government official enters the briefing room and 800 people are crowded in. Each representing a neighborhood blog. Right.
People will have to and will willingly pay for news and information.
It gets stickier when the news partnerships mentioned above drain away reader interest. When a TV report about a major manufacturer laying off thousands of workers emerges as a news report, does the daily newspaper really want the tv station to have it in the morning? Would the the TV station want to wait for the details? Would they say “For more details on the story go to latimes.com” ? How much would they be allowed to say? If it’s factual and they pay their digital subscription fee can they repeat the facts freely? Or will only the headline and short synopsis be allowed with the details and in depth info restricted to subscribers only?
What will be permitted beyond the 140 character sound bite?
The walls will go up. Newspapers (and display ads…very important) will move to formats more like the New York Times on the iPad but purely out of necessity. The internal architecture of news organizations is based on a lot of people with specialized tasks. It simply will not be replaced by mom bloggers, retired iron workers with digital cameras, and college students with idealistic visions of being journalists.
Aaron,
All very good points, but things are changing. Journalists may have been the gatekeepers of information and news for the last half a century, but not anymore. The Internet is forcing change in the way news is delivered. I’m not just talking mediums–I’m talking business models.
When I refer to “free” journalism, I don’t mean journalists working for handouts. By “free” I mean people not subscribing to pay for their news. Of course we, as journalists, say “good journalism is expensive, and as such people should pay for it!” But the general population doesn’t see it that way. They don’t see the muscle behind the stories they read. If the story is written and packaged well enough, people SHOULDN’T think about the muscle behind it.
That said, journalism–good journalism–will never be “free.” Someone has to pay for it. But it’s not going to be subscribers, not for the long-term anyway.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.