I applaud TechDirt for finding this "not free" idea to be at least not terrible. I'm not sure the model here is perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Investigative reporting is among the most desired information that traditional newspapers produce, and it is expensive to produce. Using it as a hook isn't a bad idea. For this paper, in going with print first, they obviously value the subscription (and ad revenue driven by sub numbers) as more valuable than generic online eyes, which makes sense given that online ads bring in paltry revenue for most newspapers relative to print. I agree that other competing news organizations will cover the highlights, but with investigative journalism, a goodly portion of the draw is the details.
As for your comment "I'd imagine the lost online ad revenue from not drawing traffic to the website is a much bigger number than the incremental new subscribers who want to read the story at the Journal Sentinel." It's this type of comment that makes me think TechDirt breaks from reality completely at times. Online ad revenue for most papers (and most sites in general) is PALTRY (and recently dropping). The value of a few thousand subscribers on the print side is (likely to be) much greater to this modest-sized paper. For most media organizations, though online advertising as a source of revenue has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last 5 years (until late 2008) it is still typically 5 - 15% of print revenue. While the figure I mention is focused mostly on the magazine space, I think it is reasonable to extrapolate that newspapers probably fall into the same universe, especially if they don't have a strong online classifieds system...which many don't.
Agreed that poorly run companies will not survive. And for the Mercury News, that may been the beginning and end of the issue. The broader question is not about a poorly run company, but a sea change for a whole (and very large and very ancient) industry. And I disagree that this isn't about "free": this posting is yet another of TechDirt's "free is best, pay is stupid" rants, so it has everything to do with "free." In this case, in order to make the "pay is stupid" point, the Merc is used as an example. A rather good one, I admit. The position may not be incorrect, but because of the specific situation of a relatively small paper with a tumultuous recent past, rather than pay being evil.
And @David T., TechDirt does foster some interesting commentaries, but the view point it delivers in its original postings is ALWAYS "free is best, pay is stupid" and, increasingly, "copyright is multi-generational theft." Academically, I find these discussions to be interesting, yes. But they are increasingly out of step with the real, for-profit, complicated world in which actual businesses and artists and content producers live.
All that said, I have no "problem" with TechDirt taking its "free-ist" point of view and I will continue to read the site and be largely annoyed, regularly frustrated, occasionally surprised and less occasionally convinced to change my own thinking. I will continue to occasionally call this out and see what, if any reaction/response/refutation I get. I take this as pretty much an intellectual exercise, since its applicability to the real world in its present circumstance is rather (and increasingly) limited.
Amen, CmdrOberon! Look, I like TechDirt and have for some time. I've tried to contribute as a commenter from time to time, as well. But the relentless bleating on Free-ness and the unfairness of copyrights is really getting old. This is especially the case when the conversations have become academic to the point of ignoring altogether that real businesses have real issues TODAY and need to try some things QUICKLY in order to stay afloat and keep people employed. This is not an academic discussion where there are huge foundation/non-profit/VC pockets in the background saying "take your time." TechDirt seems to not understand that anymore.
All that said, in this really very small case, I do agree that declining free readership is not a good sign for the Merc in this endeavor. The critical mass in this microcosm may have been lost long ago. This is precisely the challenge that the free web model has created for so many good media organizations: the siphoning of money over the last 10 years to create a free online presence which gives away costly-to-create content has deeply contributed to the financial problems of these for-profit organizations. While it would be great to have an advertising-supported free model forever, the fact is that it has shown to be unreliable, at best - as all digital advertising is - and tragically faulty at worst. We are now in the "worst" phase.
But we get it: TechDirt thinks anything not free is folly. While this flows nicely with the socialism-of-the-moment we're experiencing (and note the small "s"...I'm intending that to be an business-government economics statement, not a political one), it really ignores the fundamental problems for so many businesses, especially media: it costs money to create and distribute stuff.
Mike, you're comment that "These days, many people value content for the ability to engage with it, comment on it and share it with others. Micropayments take away that ability, and thus decrease the value of the content." I get that you think micropayments are a bad idea. (Increasingly, TechDirt comes across as seeming to espouse that any payment is a bad idea and spends a lot of time justifying and attempting to justify how payment for content is not only untenable but unethical...) What does any payment system have to do with the presence or lack of presence of engagement functionality? Your thought seems to directly relate payment with a lack of engagement. How do micropayments take away the ability to engage with the content or, rather, other readers on content? Yes, sharing can get a bit dodgy, but there are plenty of ways to handle that, several of which WSJ has been using for years on paid content. It does mean that the community engaged on that content is likely to be more limited, but I think there might actually be some merit to that. Most communities are limited or self-limited in some way anyways. But the extension of the "right to free content" to some kind of "right to comment and engage on said free content" just takes an already tenuous argument and stretches it in a contorted way. I'm not saying that micropayments are a panacea, but this particular argument is rather thin.
As for the restriction on engagement devaluing the content itself. Well, maybe. There are readers who value the content, and there are readers who value the reaction to the content. And some value both. But the bottom line is that without the content in the first place, there is little else to do. The problem at hand for these businesses is exactly that: the value of the content. They have seen 10 years of their content being given away and circulating all around the globe without generating revenue, making the content less valuable to them as a business. Oh, yes: the news is a business, in case anyone had forgotten. This isn't about serving the consumer it's about finding the balance between audience development/retention and a rational revenue stream.
The comparison of niche microsites with general (and much, much larger and broader) news, information and media sites falls flat just about on its face. For many of the niche sites, the real content is that provided by users (welcome to Web 2.0 and UGC). For the vast majority of for-profit media sites, the desirable content is that which takes thousands or millions of dollars to produce. "The News" is not an ethereal presence that just exists...it is something that is made by people, most of whom are paid to do so. So, the question needs to be asked: why should The News be free? There's nothing to prevent people from getting their information from free sites. But what will happen (and kinda already has) is that consumers will realize, slowly but surely, that the quality and reliability of news which is free is far different (I use "different" to be kind) than The News which is created, packaged and (sometimes) fact-checked. It's not all that much of a stretch to compare this situation to Anytown, USA in 1947. News (that is, unfiltered information about goings-on in-town) could be gained at the local bar or drugstore or soda fount, or by talking over the back fence to Freda, the neighbor. Yet people still subscribed to the local newspaper. Why? Because it was more reliable, better packaged, better written and contained things they could not know from their less formal, FREE sources. It's not a perfect comparison, but interesting.
All that said, anyone who knows me (which is probably none of you) knows I am about as far from a mainstream media guy as possible. So I get it: journalism is a fallacy, created too often by self-important boobs who can't see or admit their own biases, and funded by companies with their own slants. Additionally, there is the issue of the free cat already being out of the bag.
My sense is that major papers and magazines will not suddenly go 100% paid. Rather they will go back to (or create anew) a teaser model where some content is available free, some is roadblocked, and unique online features are created to draw people to sites. What is clear is that online advertising as a sole or even majority piece of revenue has been largely shown to be untenable for all but the most modest of organizations. Changes are already a-coming.
On the post: Will People Pay For Investigative Journalism To Get The Results A Week Early
As for your comment "I'd imagine the lost online ad revenue from not drawing traffic to the website is a much bigger number than the incremental new subscribers who want to read the story at the Journal Sentinel." It's this type of comment that makes me think TechDirt breaks from reality completely at times. Online ad revenue for most papers (and most sites in general) is PALTRY (and recently dropping). The value of a few thousand subscribers on the print side is (likely to be) much greater to this modest-sized paper. For most media organizations, though online advertising as a source of revenue has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last 5 years (until late 2008) it is still typically 5 - 15% of print revenue. While the figure I mention is focused mostly on the magazine space, I think it is reasonable to extrapolate that newspapers probably fall into the same universe, especially if they don't have a strong online classifieds system...which many don't.
On the post: San Jose Mercury News: No One Reads Us Any More, So Let's Start Charging
Re: RE: Irony
Agreed that poorly run companies will not survive. And for the Mercury News, that may been the beginning and end of the issue. The broader question is not about a poorly run company, but a sea change for a whole (and very large and very ancient) industry. And I disagree that this isn't about "free": this posting is yet another of TechDirt's "free is best, pay is stupid" rants, so it has everything to do with "free." In this case, in order to make the "pay is stupid" point, the Merc is used as an example. A rather good one, I admit. The position may not be incorrect, but because of the specific situation of a relatively small paper with a tumultuous recent past, rather than pay being evil.
And @David T., TechDirt does foster some interesting commentaries, but the view point it delivers in its original postings is ALWAYS "free is best, pay is stupid" and, increasingly, "copyright is multi-generational theft." Academically, I find these discussions to be interesting, yes. But they are increasingly out of step with the real, for-profit, complicated world in which actual businesses and artists and content producers live.
All that said, I have no "problem" with TechDirt taking its "free-ist" point of view and I will continue to read the site and be largely annoyed, regularly frustrated, occasionally surprised and less occasionally convinced to change my own thinking. I will continue to occasionally call this out and see what, if any reaction/response/refutation I get. I take this as pretty much an intellectual exercise, since its applicability to the real world in its present circumstance is rather (and increasingly) limited.
On the post: San Jose Mercury News: No One Reads Us Any More, So Let's Start Charging
Re: Irony!
All that said, in this really very small case, I do agree that declining free readership is not a good sign for the Merc in this endeavor. The critical mass in this microcosm may have been lost long ago. This is precisely the challenge that the free web model has created for so many good media organizations: the siphoning of money over the last 10 years to create a free online presence which gives away costly-to-create content has deeply contributed to the financial problems of these for-profit organizations. While it would be great to have an advertising-supported free model forever, the fact is that it has shown to be unreliable, at best - as all digital advertising is - and tragically faulty at worst. We are now in the "worst" phase.
But we get it: TechDirt thinks anything not free is folly. While this flows nicely with the socialism-of-the-moment we're experiencing (and note the small "s"...I'm intending that to be an business-government economics statement, not a political one), it really ignores the fundamental problems for so many businesses, especially media: it costs money to create and distribute stuff.
On the post: WSJ To Try Micropayments: What A Bad Idea
Missing the Mark
As for the restriction on engagement devaluing the content itself. Well, maybe. There are readers who value the content, and there are readers who value the reaction to the content. And some value both. But the bottom line is that without the content in the first place, there is little else to do. The problem at hand for these businesses is exactly that: the value of the content. They have seen 10 years of their content being given away and circulating all around the globe without generating revenue, making the content less valuable to them as a business. Oh, yes: the news is a business, in case anyone had forgotten. This isn't about serving the consumer it's about finding the balance between audience development/retention and a rational revenue stream.
On the post: The Straight Dope On Why Charging For News Online Is A Bad Idea
News Costs Money
All that said, anyone who knows me (which is probably none of you) knows I am about as far from a mainstream media guy as possible. So I get it: journalism is a fallacy, created too often by self-important boobs who can't see or admit their own biases, and funded by companies with their own slants. Additionally, there is the issue of the free cat already being out of the bag.
My sense is that major papers and magazines will not suddenly go 100% paid. Rather they will go back to (or create anew) a teaser model where some content is available free, some is roadblocked, and unique online features are created to draw people to sites. What is clear is that online advertising as a sole or even majority piece of revenue has been largely shown to be untenable for all but the most modest of organizations. Changes are already a-coming.
Next >>