Journalist Bemoans Fact People Won't Pay For Online Content; Suggests Users Be Forced To Pay For Online Content
from the building-a-walled-garden-with-everyone-on-the-inside dept
Representatives of the "old guard" are at it again. Whenever a previously massive form of media (music, film, newspapers) starts feeling the internet rifling through the till, it begins sending out panicked calls for someone, anyone, to come to its assistance.Now, these various media giants may not be able to agree on which industry deserves the most propping up, but they can all agree that someone should pay for it. And not just any someone. No, the dusty media leviathans who are routinely being beaten up for their lunch money on the Web 2.0 playground all agree that you should pay for the stuff you're used to getting for free, although they'll gladly allow someone else to do the dirty collection work.
caracabe directs us to the latest edition of the journalism's bold "new" business plan, as presented by John Reinan of the Minnesota Post. In prime journalist fashion, Reinan gives us the bad news first:
America's newspaper companies just reported their second-quarter results, and the news was bad - again.
Gannett, McClatchy, the New York Times, the Washington Post - all saw print advertising shrink by 6 percent to 10 percent from the same time last year. Iowa-based Lee is on the verge of bankruptcy.
The reason for the decline is clear: A lot of people have decided there's no reason to pay $20 a month for the newspaper when they can get news for free on the Internet. But is that news really free?Good question, John. Is the news really free? Most would argue that, yes, news can be freely obtained from pretty much anywhere on the internet at any given time. There are, of course, certain outliers who have instituted various paysieves to keep themselves afloat momentarily (including the Onion's suprisingly non-ironic "Pay Layer"), but if the numbers are to be believed, walled gardens lined with furniture ads aren't going to keep these soapboxes afloat much longer. Reinan has a suggestion, however, and he's dragging Old Man Recording Industry off his deathbed as an example:
The music business has been hit just as hard by the Internet as newspapers have. With digital technology making it easy to share files, it seems like only suckers actually pay for music these days.Wow. Music sure does have it good. No wonder that industry is peacefully tending to its own garden and leaving the market to sort out the rest. I guess Old Man Recording Industry is healthier than he looks. Sure, the internet's been beating on him some, but most of the bruising seems to be fading nicely.
But the music business does have one thing going for it that newspapers don't: a royalty system. For decades, composers and performers have gotten a tiny payment every time one of their songs is played on a jukebox or the radio, or is used in a movie or TV show.
That's all well and good for the comparatively healthy recording industry, but any tenuous linking would surely bring us into the domain of the landmark Apples v. Oranges decision, which has clearly warned against metaphoric stretching and specious conclusions in self-interested editorializing. What say you, Reinan?
It seems to me that the work of journalists is just as much an intellectual property as the work of songwriters. Why shouldn't they - or their news organization - get royalties when that work is publicly disseminated via the Internet?Ah. Clever. Surely these artistes behind the reporting of facts that occurred without their assistance are entitled to a cut of the millions of dollars generated by their services. But how?
It would be impossible to police the millions of websites that populate the Internet. But it would be much easier to collect payments from the relative handful of Internet and mobile service providers.Excellent! We don't need to know what would be the "right thing to do." All we really need to keep journalism afloat is whatever's the "easiest thing to do." Let's just take it out of those greedy billionaire ISPs. After all, without all this content, they'd cease to exist and probably have to go do some real work. Like ironworking. Or switchboard operating.
It's only fair that the greatest beneficiaries of the internet be obligated to pay for everything on the internet. And they'll certainly be busy, these rogue ISPs. The recording industry and the motion picture industry have both expressed a deep interest into turning ISPs into their own personal rent-a-cops. The real cops, along with the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS and a million other overreaching acronyms would like the ISPs to compile the world's biggest virtual file cabinet, just in case some future criminal activity can be reverse engineered from John Q. Public's internet history.
But here's the best part. It won't cost the ISPs a cent to do this.
Sure, they'd probably pass it along to the consumer, and the result would be that you'd pay an extra buck or two a month on your phone or cable bill.That's fantastic, Reinan! Of course this will work! Why, with that sort of cavalier attitude towards the end user, you journalism boys will be sitting at the grownup table with Mr. Movies and Mr. Music in no time!
Seems like a pretty small price to help keep that "free" news coming.Oh, absolutely! Couldn't agree more. "Free" isn't helping anyone. A flat fee that assumes everyone is interested in your particular brand of news could help everybody! And who would head this up? Some sort of royalty group? Even better, because as everyone knows, royalty groups are famous for their transparent accounting and quick payouts. But even better than "better" is the fact that someone is going to need to enforce this. You're going to have to get the government involved or you're going to find the ISPs opting out faster than potential pallbearers at a Murdoch family funeral.
So, let's wrap this all up and see how this potential business plan works out.
1. Users don't want to pay for online newspapers.Is that about right? If the users don't want to pay for something, we can just lift the money from their wallets via a third party? If that's what passes for a business plan, it's no wonder you're struggling. I think when people recommend that you build your online community in order to maximize your financial opportunities, I think they're referring to something more meaningful than gently caressing their back pocket area.
2. Turn the ISPs into toll booths.
3. Users now pay for online newspapers whether they're reading them or not.
4. Profit!!!
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: business models, journalism, taxation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait that sounds vaguely familiar...scratches head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not like the filthy pirates who also want things for free, they are terrorists.
But if you're a business, and you want things for free, just have the nearest middle-man within shouting distance know that you want stuff for free, and they'll be sure to get it from the pockets of their customers.
Totally not like piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not like the filthy pirates who also want things for free, they are terrorists.
This is both funny & insightful. YGMV!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I just realised that means the government should shake down some people so I can get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am fairly sure there was some kind of system like this.
So now we have blogs and other things that cry out the news to the visitors of their town (BLOG).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem comes with the question "who gets the money?". Then people, organizations and companies will line up and ask for their cut. And soon that few bucks a month will dwarf your house-mortgage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone who makes any form of digital content will demand a cut. And a bunch who are totally unrelated but likes free money just as much as the rest, and have good lawyers.
24/7 internet access will be the new "airplane rich".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't help but read this with the something awful's not logged in word filter (replaces 'fuck' with gently caress), and it made the line even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make It News... Not Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make It News... Not Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make It News... Not Entertainment
I think that's a sound theory, but I'm curious if it established. Can you cite any sources or names of this phenomenon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make It News... Not Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Make It News... Not Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would you split "an extra buck or two a month" several thousand ways between every tom dick and harry that claims that they're a news service?
Or, on the opposite pole, it's on an individual basis, what's to stop thousands of scam artists from padding up the broadband bill exponentially under the claim that they're a real news service?
Under what criteria would they be judged to be a qualifying news service, if any? Would there even be an opt-out option?
What would stop people from milking this without a user's knowledge in exchange for the provider getting a cut of what's billed, like one of those "opt-out" cell phone scams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yes, let's charge customers of one business to save a completely unrelated business even if they're not being used. Should our road tax be increased to compensate shop owners, who suffer losses through robbery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your analogy is a bit off here. That should read as follows:
Should our road tax be increased to compensate shop owners, who suffer losses due to uncompetitive business models?
These content companies are not losing money to theft. They are losing money to companies and service providers who offer a better product at a better price. There is no reason why they should be compensated for their ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been Solved!
Honestly, can't they just get with the times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been Solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Been Solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Been Solved!
Agreed - it's only good because it calls out on the suggestions that are coming from MSM.
The point is tha they have no good reason to turn it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If people don't care anymore and don't want to pay for it, that should be their decision and that business should just die, if there is ever a need for it again it will come up again in the future taking into account the new realities inside that market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry - what?!?!?
Note that he explicitly says advertising revenue is down, but doesn't mention subscription revenue... so the reason that advertising revenues are down is because subscribers are not paying?
Isn't the logial conclusion then to make the dead tree edition free? Won't that bring people back and drive up the advertising revenue again? No? Then obviously the problem isn't that your subscribers expect it for free, it's that your news isn't compelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The idea is deceptively logical at the surface."
However, you people haven't pur forth any alternative method. Right now all are sponging off the established media plus a few bloggers and other independents. You keep claiming that the news industry, among others, needs a "new business model", but you're obviously not willing to sign on to /this/ one, nor again, have you ANY alternative to the dinosaur method.
But the BBC has worked from general tax revenues. I don't agree with its "EngSoc" slant or putting out gov't (monarchist) propaganda, but on other hand, it did produce Monty Python.
So here's my refinement: start with everyone pays a SMALL amount added to other bills. Who'd object to that IF were fair and above board? -- Tens of millions a month IS enough to finance journalists. -- Pay outs go to /individuals only/ and are determined simply by /per piece/ submissions, much as "stringers" do right now.
Be on the honor system in general, BUT provide a mechanism to review all submissions for authenticity, non-duplication, and various other schemes to skim more from the fund, with criminal penalties possible. That's basically the same as present prohibitions on fraud, doesn't require a new bureacracy as readers would police it: there'd just be a new point to complain offficially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The idea is deceptively logical at the surface."
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The idea is deceptively logical at the surface."
Don't go adding crap to my bills, which I already can barely afford, for things I will not use. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The idea is deceptively logical at the surface."
Not true - the licence fee is a hypothecated tax so doesn't fall under "general tax revenues". This is supposed to keep the BBC separate from government - and it does work to some extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "The idea is deceptively logical at the surface."
Done. Thanks for the heads up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About my piece of that free money pie......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The war on Not-Buying begins.
The pirates said this day would come, and it has. Soon the criminals will be the ones who refuse to purchase content. Because capitalism and the ability to have your say through your wallet is for communists.
ps: giveb us monies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surely we have access to all of their content, all of the time, because we are paying them for it, correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic idea!
Let's start with photographers, many of whom have been unwilling to adapt their business models to account for changing technology and are no longer to earn a living the exact same way they used to do so. I think $2/month is a bargain for all the great photography.
And game developers, as many of these games are available free on the internet through the web or smartphone apps. Whereas once they could only sell games for $50 a pop, now they're forced to compete against small developers selling games for $1-2. In light of the dramatic reduction in prices, $2/month is about right.
Oh, and authors! Lots of books are on the web, for free! Of, for the want of royalties paid to Shakespeare's great-great-great grandchildren, there is free competition. And sometimes authors offer their own books for free! But are they really free? NO! Surely no one would begrudge an extra $3/month to make sure the next Twain doesn't starve?
And we must account for the poets whose poems can now be enjoyed without buying a $200 anthology. That's $1/month. Painters & sculptors, no one pays to view photos of their artworks on the web, let's tack on another $1. Lest we forget the broadcasters, who can't cram in as many ads on free webcasts as on free broadcasts-- $3/month should soothe their pain. And of course, the ad writers, that much maligned profession, don't have as many print publications to target. I think they'll settle for $1/month.
Lastly, I'm surely leaving out other great contributors, we'll put them in the catch all, cap that at $5/month. Sure, it's not much, but much more and folks might start to notice.
An extra $30/month seems like a pretty small price to help keep that "free" content coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In your stupid faces, paying customers!
Haha, take that loyal customers! What a bunch of suckers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone has to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to pay
Yes, so let's force customers with no willingness in said content to buy it instead. Surely they have nothing better to spend their money on if they are spending it on such frivolous things like the internet.
We should extend this to all industries. Maybe make it a felony to not have an MPAA movie in your house at all times. Or maybe ban all vehicles that are not branded by Ford.
Or why even do that? We're clearly just handing money over to the big industries with nothing in return. Why don't we go all the way and just start giving them our tax dollars? That way they can keep producing content and materials that no one wants, we can continue to not buy it because the market clearly doesn't want it, and they can continue to have a failing business that earns zero dollars for no one but the richest at the top.
Maybe we can start grinding up actual hobos and the homeless who actually need this kind of real money and use their ground up kibble to feed us after we're giving all of our money to companies that produce nothing of value and CEOs who have no other talent besides running companies into the ground.
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to pay
You have hit the nail on the head but not in the way you expected. What is happening is the internet has created a national & international market for anyone with a computer. What does that mean? That means that there are to many journalists and newspapers. We don't need 2 or 3 papers in every town now. A few national/international outlets and maybe some regional ones are all that is needed. The collapse of journalism will serve to drive some from the market to find other jobs.
It is all growth pains and dying pains at the same time. In other words, it is the market changing and ultimately working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone has to pay
In a truly free market this would let the best rise to the top and make a good living while the bad, unusable, unwanted, and unresponsive sources get forced out of the markets.
I welcome them floundering and trying stupid things to hang on as it will make sure the anchor around their neck is their end. It will hide the fact of the changing world from them until they are no longer relevant in the world. It will be a long fall, but they are doing their best to ensure they fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a new business plan for myself
It won't matter that all of my content will suck and nobody wants to pay for it; it only matters that I created it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a new business plan for myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
analogy
That bum should totally get the government to force everyone who walks down that street to pay. It's the artistic thing to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah that's the problem
Historically the newspapers have made their money from advertising and the backs of their non-union employees. In many communities there a free local newspapers which are payed for strictly by advertising. The big papers have seen their subscriber base drop, because of competing attention for eyeballs, and thus can't charge as much for advertising.
This is where they started a downward spiral. Using "The Washington Post" as an example, to keep their profits up they cut content and raised prices. Hey we lost more customers and have to reduce our ad rates so let's cut content and raised prices. Continue repeating above sentence.
Newspapers, movies, music, ... when you cut your wrist, refuse medical treatment because you know cutting the other one will make it all better, don't expect me to feel sorry for you when you bleed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah that's the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone has to pay
Especially in comparison to posting a paragraph that rephrases the first paragraph of a paper, when you have a detailed editorial over the contents of the same paper with an intelligent analysis and opinions which is not something that is just a line of facts and isn’t spread like a single sentence news fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to pay
Reminds me of the classic film - Cool Runnings
The guy was trying to raise money for the team by singing "Jamica we have a bob sled team" in the streets. He ended making one dollar from someone who paid him to shut up ; )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Leistungsschutzrecht" in Germany
Big publishing companies in Germany have been lobbying heavily on the same lines as Mr Reinan does; they are demanding the creation of another collecting society to which every internet user has to pay some amount of money who (actually or potentially) makes use of journalistic publications, i.e. virtually everyone.
This is my blog post which is about one year old but the plans are still on the official agenda of the current German Government under chancellor Merkel.
LINK to my Blog post
The trick is that classic copyright law as such appears to be insufficient to implement this - publishing companies are demanding some sort of ancillary copyright in addition, the German term is "Leistungsschutzrecht".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Leistungsschutzrecht" in Germany
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess this means you can legally pirate, because you are paying for their content, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I guess this means you can legally pirate, because you are paying for their content, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rent Seeking
Enjoy these benefits:
1. Extract wealth from society while providing no value
2. Protection provided by the largest law enforcement agencies in the world
3. Freedom from competition
4. No need to innovate
5. Solidify your existing business model
And there's so much more!
Contact a lobbyist to find out about monopoly rents for your industry today! While supplies last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
I'll need an extra $1/month to run the collection system.
also to do my OWN accounts ill need a further $1/month.
Since news often happens outside this is also a public performance so lets add another $5/month to the kitty!
also I don't really want to pay tax on my wages, so we can add $1/month to cover that also....
Did someone said ice cream? mmmm ice cream.....that'll be another $5/month (gotta have a nice yacht to eat it on!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill date: Feb 3, 2023
Bill items:
==========
Internet service: $42
Bandwidth cap monitoring cost recoup fee: $0.50
Peak-hour internet usage penalty: $3
Government monitoring cost expenditures reclamation: $4
Recording Industry Association tariff: $7
Motion Picture Association tariff: $12
Adult Picture Association tariff: $1.69
Journalist Association of America tariff: $1
eBook Sellers Association tariff: $4
American Society for Politeness online tariff: $1
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Independent Recording Industry Association tariff: $7
Independent Motion Picture Association tariff: $12
Independent Adult Picture Association tariff: $1.69
Independent Journalist Association of America tariff: $1
Independent eBook Sellers Association tariff: $4
American Society for Rudeness online tariff: $1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me something worth paying for, and I will support it. I see mostly a lot of "newspinion" crap out there right now (and yes, Techdirt is in that category as well), and while I do read some of it, there are far too many sources of it and a shakeout is overdue. Those left standing will have more readers and more ad revenue. The rest will die and hardly be missed. I figure we'll see most of them go more partisan as well to cater to their audiences. Maybe a few centrists will survive. I hope those few outlets doing real journalism can get enough supporters to keep doing what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 2. The newly-formed News Industry Association of America (NIAA) collects the royalties.
Step 3. The NIAA spends all of the royalties on lawsuits to get more ISPs to pay up.
Step 4. ???
Step 5. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the fuck would he expect me to pay for news from Minnesota?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, the end results aren't exactly in on the NYT paywall yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF my ISP only charges when I actually visit a tariffed site, and also provides a service that warns me everytime I am about to navigate to a tariffed site and allows me to decline going there, as well as the option to add it to either a blacklist (site ceases to exist from my perspective) or a whitelist (no more warnings for that site).
That might not yield quite the result the news industry is looking for, but at least it's fair to the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're saying I can have an option with my ISP to keep all those non-free sites away from me!
Sign me up!
We can all get back to the free internet once again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you buy rotten vegetables?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]