Fine, Let Newspapers Collude
from the just-get-it-over-with-already dept
We've heard from more than a few journalists over the last few months, thinking that the best way to save the newspaper business is for newspapers to get a special antitrust exemption from Congress that would allow them to collude and all agree to put up paywalls. The latest to join the chorus is Tim Rutten at the LA Times, and it's basically more of the same. For people who are supposed to be great journalists, you'd think they could think more than one move out, and realize what the inevitable response would be to newspapers all ganging up and putting up a paywall. The problem that Rutten, and the others before him, have made is assuming (incorrectly) that if they put up paywalls, people will suddenly, magically, want to pay. This sort of conceit is seen in a poll put together by a Canadian TV producer by the name of Wodek Szemberg. Over the weekend he set up a poll asking people how much they would pay per month for the news they read... and the price starts at $10. As Mathew Ingram pointed out, Szemberg's post is missing zero as an option (I'd argue it's also missing a lot of other numbers -- starting at $10 is incredibly presumptuous). Szemberg responded to this criticism by saying that zero isn't an option because zero will not exist for access to sites. Trust me, for many people, zero will absolutely exist as an option.It's difficult to think of anything to say to people who think these ways, other than "good luck." The real world doesn't believe in such limitations. If the newspapers collude and come up with a pricing scheme where the lowest option starts at $10 per month -- fine. Just go do it, and then let's see what happens. Because talking about it is getting pretty silly.
But here's my guess as to what happens:
- Smart news publications break off from the "charge 'em" pack and remain free and/or experiment with more creative business models.
- Traffic to the paywall sites drops to ridiculously low levels.
- Those sites realize that the revenue from subscriptions is a blip and barely noticeable.
- In removing much of the audience, those sites also lose pretty much all leverage with advertisers, and discover that their online ad revenue drops quite a lot as well.
- Meanwhile, remember those smart publications that didn't join in the suicide party? They're soaking up plenty of traffic, and working hard to provide more value to readers.
- On top of that, newer startups spring up to fill in the void left by the paywall crew.
- Smart journalists start jumping ship from the legacy papers behind the paywall to those who actually get them some public recognition (which are a lot more fun anyway).
- Without competition from, or the legacy business structures of, the paywall newspapers, the smarter publications start bringing in both audience and revenue (not all of it advertising).
- The paywall crew goes back to complaining to the gov't, though people start to wonder why they're still around, when there's so much useful journalism going out without paywalls.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: collusion, journalism, newspapers, tim rutten
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Some news has a negative value
I would personally pay NOT to receive some news. I'm thinking of a "free" local newspaper which keeps being delivered to me each week, and which I never read, but which I have to store until I get enough to recycle. I think minus 25c per week would be a fair value.
PS: Welcome back after the hacking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reading habits are different
Over the last 5 years or so the practise of blogs linking to newpaper stories has meant that I now occasionally visit newspaper sites - so there is now a little potential revenue for them from me (via ads) where 10 years ago there was none.
However my pattern of usage has changed - before I would read the same paper every day at around $20 a month even then - so the $10 monthly subscription might have looked reasonable.
Now I read a random selection of articles from newspapers all over the world. (British, American, Australian, Canadian etc etc).
If I can't read the linked to articles because of a paywall then I won't - if they all do it then it will be annoying because to subscribe to EVERY English language newspaper in the entire WORLD at $10 per month - or to pay $10 on the spot to read a single article that a blogger has linked to is unreasonable - and to many unaffordable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some news has a negative value
Why is it legal for them to throw trash all over everyones yards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps we need a national newscare mandate. For the children, or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Experimenting with more creatives business models?
Making an ethical incentive: money for art, liberty for people.
The copies are free. You pay for the work you like.
The traditional press can't grok it, the poor dears. See Invasion of the Copy Snatchers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Questions for the newspaper industry:
-Will there be a single payment house to which consumers make their payments? If so, how will these funds get distributed? If not, this should be another wake-up call.
-When a consumer coughs up the "$10" and assuming collusion has been granted, does this mean consumers have access to all news from all sites? If not, that's a BIG, BIG problem.
-Is this collusion going to ensure consumers aren't being fleeced with exaggerated cost-to-value ratios?
Let me give you some insight, given the internet is my field of expertise:
It is impossible to monetize the internet.
It is a distribution system. Use it to your advantage, as this globally accessible system can save costs.
Quit being ignorant and start realizing what the industry's purpose is and make money from it. It's there. Trust me. Consumers will buy anything they place value in.
And news isn't it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not likely
China Daily (US News)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
Japan Today (US News)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world
Moscow Times (US News)
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/index.htm
British Broadcasting Corporation (World News)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Times of India (World News)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
New Zealand Herald (World News)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
Pakistan - The News International
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
Middle East - Al Jazeere
http://english.aljazeera.net/
The Gulf
http://www.godubai.com/Gulftoday/
Turkey
http://www.topix.com/world/turkey
Italy
http: //www.lifeinitaly.com/news
France
http://www.france24.com/en/
Germany
http://www.thelocal.de /
Poland - The Warsaw Voice
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/
Sweden
http://www.thelocal.se/
Argentina - Buenos Ares Hearld
http://www.thelocal.se/
Brazil
http://www.brazilnews.com/
Colusion?
Who is kidding whom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newspaper Paywalls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paywall vs Zero
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice Idea... Has it worked anywhere else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nice Idea... Has it worked anywhere else?
You know it's going to happen so let's start thinking up the ceremony now. Something involving public tea bagging?
"the laws would be written in such a way that anyone who professionally tries to enter the news industry would be required to join and work within this "paywall"."
The so called "professional" newspapers won't allow anyone to be called "professional" unless they agree with their backwards thinking. Thus, far too many "amateurs" will still be free to do whatever they want.
"True, you would still have amateur blogs and websites running news, but anything other than someone saying "Hey, I saw something today, and here's my version of it" would be inaccessible without going through the paywall."
And thanks to fair use, you can wright up your own story about what is on the page without having a problem. A link to a logon is still a link to the site.
"however that would leave the vast majority of the population even more uninformed than they already are."
The people who actually stay informed will stay informed even if they have to go to the "amateur" sites.
"Also, remember, it was not that long ago that any news other than the evening news on broadcast tv was available only by a monthly subscription, or a per day purchase... And people had no problem with that."
That's back when a physical copy of the newspaper was delivered to their doors. Once the internet came into play, it's like free walked in, sat down, and let out a vary long fart to clear out the room. Some are still holding their breath to attempt to say, but it won't last long.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nice Idea... Has it worked anywhere else?
I wonder if we're to see an inversion again between the cachet attached to amateur vs professional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You forgot bullet point 10
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nice Idea... Has it worked anywhere else?
Even in the heydays of newspaper, television, etc., there were always business models with "free" as an element, limited only by technology and physical scarcity (e.g., you need a TV to watch broadcasts). It would be all kinds of unconstitutional to *require* that the American people *pay* for X kind of media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lunch with the editor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How long...
One of the reasons we're in this situation is their current ad-based systems are NOT working well for them. Go to USAToday site and you're BOMBARDED with pop-up windows, flashing/moving/annoying ads and have to actually hunt for content amid the ads. So what have users done? We've employed schemes, such as AdBlock, to eliminate those annoying ads entirely. So the goose that laid the golden egg has been killed by abuse and overuse. So that's problem #2.
And does the main-stream (state run) media think they'll be the only source for news? Once pay walls go up, there will be those who will produce the news on the advert model who will win out in the end.
So sad to see ya go. Its been nice knowing you (not).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lunch with the editor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, correction to one of your points
"7. Smart journalists start jumping ship from the legacy papers behind the paywall to those who actually get them some public recognition (which are a lot more fun anyway, and can afford to pay them, as their previous employers are now broke). "
Cheers! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free alternatives
www.rte.ie
Free news alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is like saying that all software devs MUST charge. Doesn't make too much sense. If i make something, I should be allowed to sell it at $0 if I feel like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice list, but
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lunch with the editor?
The Internet should have been a godsend to Newspapers - it practically eliminated one of their largest costs, broke through the physical problems of geographic distribution and production imposed deadlines. Unfortunately the complete misunderstanding of their own business model by the old guard at the helm has caused them to lose any advantage they had and now they go begging for legal changes to artificially prop up their ailing organisations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lunch with the editor?
If they can't compete with engaging writers like MG Siegler, hopefully, maybe, just maybe (crosses fingers) something else will come.
In the meantime, limiting the business in the existing ways, a way that only caters to the over 35 demographic and people with advanced degrees will work, but for a limited time.
That is until one of four things happens: 1) Existing customerbase passes away and dies. 2) Customers are sued into oblivion for not paying money. 3) the business realizes that the market changed, and the overall audience requires more from their news provider.
I can guarantee you that for every person that has lunch with the editor, they probably tell 100, if not more, of the experience, who have a high probability of becoming super loyal customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lunch with the editor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shovels
Why on earth haven't newspapers gotten into the ISP business? With advertiser support, a newspaper could undercut every other provider, charge a subscriber fee, and once again control distribution to its audience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Some news has a negative value
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I paid $1.09 for the SF Chronicle...
As for the SFGate website, there's another useless thing. It's virtually impossible to find the ACTUAL weather in your neighborhood (wunderground is waaayyy better), events are impossible to navigate (oh yeah, and thanks for writing about how cool something was AFTER the fact), and when there are helicopters buzzing my neighborhood for hours I can never find out WHY.
Funny enough, one of the most popular parts of the SF Gate website is the article comments, an area where people love to participate despite atrocious technology.
In summary:
1. The paper version isn't worth more than 50 cents
2. The online version is worth even less
Unless they decide they are really going to be a local paper and build a better website, then it's hard to see why anyone would want to pay anything for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wouldn't be surprised if they also reward good comments with credits toward free subscription renewals.
It's all going to be one big community of happy families playing in blissful ignorance within a walled garden (topped with razorwire). Eventually people will realise that such happy smiley holiday camps soon turn into stagnant ghettoes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another challenge I wish they would accept
Original Post on Google Blog: Google says use robots.txt
Use robots.txt to block the Google Crawler, and we promise to never refer traffic to you ever again! Has anyone taken the challenge? Dare they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That would be copyright infringement....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government intervention
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is almost no journalism left in the US. The MSM "journalism" is worse than worthless. It has achieved what TV news alone had accomplish over a quarter century ago: becoming "anti-news": leaving you less informed than you began, while giving you the impression that you are more informed. MSM journalism is dangerous and corrosive to our society.
The emergence of amateur journalism gives me hope. The amateurs aren't quite up to speed yet, but they already are of greater value than the pros, and I see every sign that they are the future of real journalism. The demide of the pros will only improve this situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Newspaper Paywalls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lunch with the editor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free alternatives
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How Much Would You Pay For Air?
If I surveyed how much you would pay for the air you breathe today, I bet you'd pretty much offer everything you owned, and all you could borrow. But how much will you pay? Well, since you can get it for free elsewhere, I'm guessing about zero. The value is high, the price is zero. You'd be willing to pay infinity, but you will pay only zero.
Great survey. Hope those stats are useful to you, Szemberg. Now, like Mike says, put up or shut up. Just do it, already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]