If you’ve been following the headlines on Techmeme over the weekend, you’ve likely seen more talk about the whole blogger vs. online journalism debate, the short-sightedness of big media and the inevitable demise of its historical business model. Every time that debate heats up, someone somewhere will at some point bring up the unlikely savior of the publishing industry once more: glorious micropayments.
This time, it’s The Guardian’s Frank Fisher taking a stand, and he says not only will micropayments guarantee the newspapers a future, it can also downright “save journalism,” and oh, Google should be the one providing the infrastructure for it, too.
Time to debunk “Saving journalism, a farthing at a time”.
Fisher correctly points out the dismal state of the economy has driven advertising revenues down, and this puts newspapers in dire need of finding out how it should subsidize its operations in different ways, with the realization that the printing part of the equation is inevitably going to fade away and that there’s too little money to be made from online advertising to make up for the costs of transferring its entire publishing business (as it operates today) to the Web.
The rest of his opinion piece comes down to this: wishful thinking and misunderstanding.
“Publishers are in a nightmarish situation; they know the print side of their business is struggling, they know punters want their news online, but they can’t see how to make it pay. In desperation others may follow Murdoch’s retreat behind the paywall. Not good news for news addicts. It isn’t so much the money, it’s the usernames, passwords, subscriptions … Actually, it is the money. But publishers need a profit. Information might want to be free – but food and housing isn’t. So is there another way? Some model that brings in more than advertising, but doesn’t exclude casual visitors, either by cost or inconvenience? Well yes – an idea that won’t go away: micropayments.”
Publishers are in a nightmarish situation, and in large part they have themselves to blame for that. Fine with me if they want to escape from that situation by retreating behind paywalls – in fact, I encourage them to do so and die there soon so we can kiss that idea goodbye once and for all. How are paywalls bad news for news addicts? Those addicts have been spoiled to death the past few years, to the point where information overload has taken over and made the consumption of news overly tedious. I know because I’ve been one of them ever since I’ve been able to read, and this was long before I discovered the Internet. Introduce paywalls, ease the choice for news addicts, see what happens.
Information is now a commodity, so deal with it. And yes, it should be free to end users. But how will that pay for the food and housing of the people working in the publishing industry, you ask? I say it’s not our problem, and tough luck. In no way does the realization that the model doesn’t work anymore mean that the masses, lawyers, the government or any other institution should be bailing out newspapers for screwing up their chance to figure out this Internet thing in time and adapting to it. Publishers need a profit, like any other business, but that doesn’t mean they all deserve to turn one, and certainly not at the expense of better, more innovative publishing businesses that are waiting around the corner.
Go read the column in The Guardian (for free) to find out how micropayments for news would work in detail. Basically, it would involve Google doing the bailing out part I was talking about in the previous paragraph.
“The transfer potential of [Google AdSense] technology to a micropayments scenario is clear: individuals would sign up with Google, deposit funds. They’d have a unique ID attached to them at that point – an encrypted cookie stored on whichever PC they happen to log in with. When they visit a site with GoogleDosh embedded they’re allowed in, a fraction of a penny is switched to the content provider’s account for every item they read – if visitors aren’t GoogleDosh members, they’re re-routed, perhaps, to a précis, or a sign-up form, or even to a limited trial. The key difference from other micropayment schemes is scale – and that’s what beats individual site subscriptions too – sign up with one scheme, and you get access to thousands of sites. That’s my theory, at least. It’s technically simple – an easy step if publishers accept a single standard, and the success of Google Ads suggests they will. Publishers win, consumers win long-term by supporting content providers, and in the short term, if good sense among sellers prevails, they get a bargain: spending pennies a day for all the content they need.”
Publishers win, yes, to a certain extent. Google? maybe. Journalists? Up for debate. Consumers? Not likely. There are some content providers out there who have figured out how to build a business without the need for people to pay to support them, and their number will only grow in size in the foreseeable future. If anything, Google should (continue to) support them, and not the relics of another age.
For more perspective on micropayments, you should read “What Would Micropayments Do for Journalism? A Freakonomics Quorum”, in case you haven’t already. I’m lifting this part from the piece, a quote by Marshall W. Van Alstyne (associate professor in the Information Systems department at Boston University and a research scholar at M.I.T) because I think there’s no better way to conclude this post:
Putting micropayments on news is like putting tollbooths on an open ocean. Internet users, awash in a sea of information, will avoid new barriers by navigating around them. And frankly, the interests of a free society are rarely served by building barriers between the people and their news.
Amen.
One can only charge for quality content.
The question is if newspapers can still deliver content with higher quality than bloggers.
I don’t think newspapers can. Their content is traditionally so “dumbed down” any person with two braincells can reword the information to post on another site.
More in-depth articles where complicated issues are discussed (like analysis reports, technical documents, research papers, etc.) would probably have little trouble being on a site that charges users a monthly subscription charge.
I personally think “fluff” news stories aren’t worth a cent individually. A site that continuously gets me to come back because of their timely reporting will get their revenue through banner ads. The second they try to charge me for access though is when I leave.
I think print newspaper can be revived somehow this way: Keep brief news update free online (the way a blog updates its content), but sell feature articles (feature news) that require analysis in print.
File story under “Stockholm Syndrome” as author has no clue she is being marginalized by the bloggers in a more damaging way than any newspaper publisher could dream of.
Fact is TC doesn’t pay scale, union wages or even salary to its so called “journalists.” You’re paid like underfed stringers at best.
How’s that 401K working for you. Insurance, right, because you do have a family. Oh, you don’t age like the rest of us. Sick pay, vacation pay, etc…
Ehhhh, nope. You are a migrant worker, Sweetie. Except you think you’re on vacation.
You have zero leverage, little to no growth opportunities, and have to rely completely on your obtuse idiot boss to remain in good standing—whatever that means.
In reality, you’re the VICTIM but you lash out at the one industry trying to save you. You’re feasting on Hamburger Helper without the Hamburger and telling us full you’re belly is.
Why don’t you change your name to Patty Hearst and get it over with? Yeah, Yeah, I know. You don’t know who I’m referring to…
Which is entirely my point.
Yeah I’m a guy.
Hey, not everyone deserves to get a cushy 401k plan, benefits, vacation time, etc.! I’m not a TechCrunch employee but man, why do Journalists think they’re so important? I mean, who CAN’T write nowadays?
Sure, maybe we don’t all know AP Style (or care to…such a stupid writing system) but c’mon…journalists and writers in general are a quickly dying breed. As I’ve said elsewhere in this discussion, there will always be a place for a handful of truly unique writers…but gone are the days when any schmuck with a 7th grade level writing ability can get all those things you mentioned as being necessary.
Quality and unique work is what will separate writers from each other here on out…not rewording AP stories or turning three or fours bits of data into a 20″ story. Sports “writers” were the best…mention nothing but stats for the majority of an “article” and then when they weren’t doing that they could just speculate (not REPORT) on whatever topic they wanted. What rubbish. Why can’t a random blogger do any better than that? Doesn’t seem too taxing on any level.
Journalism, especially good investigative reporting, plays a large part in democracy and is fundamental in informing the public. Do newspapers need to be saved? Probably not. Do news organizations need to be saved? Yes, because you need people who are qualified to investigate and report the news. You need news organizations to pay for month long reports, reports that bloggers cannot do themselves because nobody is there to pay them. Its a profession that is required. Do they need cushy benefits? Probably not, but its not about saving the journalists so much as it is saving journalism.
Not to mention, most pieces from bloggers are opinion pieces which themselves link back to original stories from newspaper (or similar) sites. If opinion pieces and commentary are the future of the news, we are all screwed.
You’d think such a professional journalist would know the difference between your and you’re.
Hi Robin,
“There are plenty of content providers out there who have figured out how to build a business without the need for people to pay to support them, and their number will only grow in size in the foreseeable future.”
I read this. Then tried to think of some. Really? I can think of a handful of B2B content providers. But ‘plenty’? Like…
Maybe ‘plenty’ was a bit strong, yes, although I’m sure there are examples that you and I haven’t heard of yet (in other parts of the world, perhaps?).
Changed to ’some content providers’ though.
Robin – fantastic post. As a startup deeply involved in debate, I think you nailed a lot of the points that traditional newspaper organizations don’t get.
To be fair to the Guardian, however, they are one of the most forward-thinking, open news orgs that we’ve come across, both in terms of their thinking and their actions (Open Platform).
Finally, here’s an example of a newspaper that can actually charge for it’s news, covers local very well, and doesn’t require a bailout: Arkansas Democrat Gazette. They must be doing something right.
Agreed about The Guardian, they’re doing some things worth applauding for, but I do take issue with this article in particular.
The notion that information *should* be free to end users is arguable… but the fact that information largely IS free at this point I completely agree with. The genie is out of the bottle on that one.
The only choice for newspapers is to create new business models… but (critically) models which add value for the end user. Not ones which create obstructions, and annoyances but add nothing of value beyond the content itself, which users feel that they are currently already getting.
Amen, man. I can’t believe they haven’t hopped online in a standard-kinda-way yet – it’s irresponsible. Not to mention, how the hell can the same people who warn us about the whole global warming scam and saving trees be so clingy to paper? They should have wised up – their writers did. Their writers put their best content on their blogs, as they should, as is quite wise of them.
@Sam Michel … Guys at Gawker, Perez Hilton, and so on
To be honest, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea. I subscribe to another site which costs around $10 a month, but the articles are that much better than any of the million other sports websites that I feel it’s worth it. You get what you pay for I guess..
I completely understand, but what would happen if only one of those million other sports websites suddenly brought in some kick-ass editors and started delivering the quality content you ask for, free of charge?
Turn it around. Why would they?
They’re in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers, not selling content to people. They only need to produce content of a high enough grade to maximize value to advertisers. Every penny beyond that for extra quality is waste.
Even worse, many sorts of content quality reduce ad revenue. Critical acclaim is often the kiss of death for new broadcast TV shows, for example. And you don’t expect to hear great music on the radio.
Because of that, I try to pay for my content wherever possible. The Economist costs a lot more than Time, but it doesn’t make me dumber every time I read it. Or compare either one of those with the tragedy that is ad-supported TV “news”.
exactly, its not like tech crunch brought in a “kick ass” blogger when they hired the twit MG
On of the problems with the newspaper model is that they all, necessarily, basically publish the same news.
Given that the net allows one publisher to serve the entire world, it seems like there is going to be some type of “adjustment” to the industry.
Perhaps they can go local, focus on a particular topic or slant, develop a personality or a voice. Wow, sounds suspiciously like becoming a blog doesn’t it.
I Think the era of free web is almost over. There’s smomething I really cannot undestand: yout tube has 200-300 millon visitors per month, and why their revenues are far less from any other traditional tv channell?
One print edition of FT collect an amount of advertsing comparable to six month budget on the website.
That’s the main question. Why prices of ad on internet are so undervalued?
Because, as a person who has had a lot of experience with online advertising vs. print advertising, I can safely say that the big ad agencies don’t honestly care about viewers/visitors in terms of “quality.”
For example, if you were to tell a normal advertiser on ABC that they could reach up to 25 million homes during an episode of a show by using a 30-second commercial one night, they’d think that was the best investment ever.
However, if you try to sell the same advertiser a key banner ad placement on a site that, say, generates 5 million page views a month, they’d be like, “Well we’re not interested.”
Advertisers want the biggest number – nevermind that Nielsen and other study/research groups have no 100% accurate way to track viewers (for all we know, they could making number sup out of thin air). Web, on the other hand, gives advertisers true, no BS, in-your-face statistics down to the browser type and resolution used.
So there you have it — the biggest ad agencies and companies in the world have advertising/sales people barely smart enough to sign their giant paychecks — making them actually accountable for where every dollar goes and tracking ROI would be far too big of demand on them. They’d rather throw money blindly at non-measurable things and move on to the next big thing.
the biggest ad agencies and companies in the world have advertising/sales people barely smart enough to sign their giant paychecks — making them actually accountable for where every dollar goes and tracking ROI would be far too big of demand on them. They’d rather throw money blindly at non-measurable things and move on to the next big thing.
If true we would love to see some supporting documentation. This would be a great investigative article for an enterprising journalist.
Good article! I wonder how long it will take for this issue to pan itself out. With news breaking on blogs and sites like Twitter, the newspapers may just be losing their battleground.
There are four key business models for intellectual work:
1) Monopoly (exploiting suspended liberty)
2) Advertising (selling eyeballs)
3) Taxation (compensating for loss of monopoly)
4) Trade (exchange of intellectual work for money)
For some strange reason, virtually no-one promotes the last option – probably because it disintermediates a big pile of cash from those who would be intermediaries (publishers, Google, collection societies/government).
Unfortunately, newspapers (as other publishers) are fixated on selling copies.
It’s a big problem, this fixation on copies, the stunning inability for people to recognise that the market for copies has ended, that the market for intellectual work must resume.
If people can make their own copies for nothing then why on earth do they want to pay a printer/distributor for them? “Because that’s how we’ve done it for the last 300-600 years”. Luddism, the next generation.
http://en.wikip...rg/wiki/Luddite
“In his work on English history, The Making of the English Working Class, E. P. Thompson presented an alternative view of Luddite history. He argues that Luddites were not opposed to new technology in itself, but rather to the abolition of set prices and therefore also to the introduction of the free market.”
Spot on I’d say, then and now.
300 years ago communication was a little less efficient than it is today. A monopoly would have thus been very attractive as a substitute for subscriptions, but without a monopoly, I suspect subscription systems would have become ever more efficient (300 years of an alternate history no-one will ever know, and few can conceive of).
Today we have the Internet, and thus the communications technology to enable that principle without a monopoly, “that many people each pay a little towards the cost of creative content which they each then enjoy”.
And so this is the business model today:
1) Publish it – and they will come.
2) If people think it’s worth paying for, let them pay. If they don’t, improve the product.
3) Make the decision to pay easy – a token amount – a penny.
4) Make the intention to pay easy – a click of a button – the actual payment invariably isn’t (save it up for a rainy day).
5) Payment is voluntary, but not a donation – make the deal clear – value for money.
6) Your customers are not your enemy, but your ambassadors.
Don’t forget though, this is for published work without any monopoly, i.e. everyone is free to make their own copies, to repost the work on their own blogs, etc. (and no, that doesn’t mean being able to misrepresent another’s work as one’s own).
For more information see:
http://www.digi...ndex.php?id=180
Any product that has a hard to quantify/measurement of how good it is will easily be replaced by cheaper or more convenient.
Journalism is the same. Its in over supply at all levels of quality. I’ll easily choose the best I can find for free over the best there is for some fee… because I’m part of a culture of convenience…
If this is a journalistic culling of the herds, amongst the survivors the quality of the best free news providers should only go up to keep me from reading the other lower quality free content.
… and now back to watching videos of skateboarding cats.
Personally I think there really isn’t a solution for publishers,
there are just way too many newspapers out there, no way they will all survive whatever the new model is.
Even if micropayments help bring back some of the lost revenues from papers sold. They basically lost the big advertising money, because they are no longer in such a central information junction. Assuming the articles are great, its still only one thing people get information from, but now from a selection of millions.
+They lost classifieds which again are done far better in specific sites.
Sir, you say:
“Information is now a commodity, so deal with it.”
I’m afraid I don’t agree — my sense is that there’s a lot of information that does not come to light unless somebody goes out and asks the questions. Furthermore, there’s a lot of information which needs to be put together from various places in order to make a story — that is, a message within all of the static.
While there may be a few hobbyists out there who do this from time to time, I think we’ll lose a lot if we don’t have people who are ultimately paid to perform these tasks. Without such investigative journalism, you wind up with shallow reporting without insight or a considered viewpoint, and a lot of recycled soundbytes. The truth of issues is never reached, and the collective dumbing down of everybody dooms us to repeat societal mistakes and miss vital lessons.
I could not have said it better myself.
Here is an excellent source of investigative reporting: http://centerfo...vereporting.org
the simple fact is, that good local media will survive and in alot of cases thrive. There are local papers in Britain that thrive delivering news along the lines of ” church roof appeal £500 closer to target thanks to raffle”. It is a matter of delivering content that is unique and of interest to your audience. Of course there is a need for rationalisation within the news media, the internet has changed the game and disruptive technology is a marvellous thing. (why should news media be immune to the cuts faced everywhere else?)
The other thing of course is that techy people tend to go over the top with technological solutions to problems, when in general tried and tested solutions only need to be tweaked, rather than re inventing the wheel. Hundreds of years ago newspapers took over from dispatches, then radio and tv supplemented newspapers, Now and for the last 15 years the internet has emerged as the prime means of accessing the news. It just so happens that your glorious twitter, could be a model for the next tweak of news delivery. (and i hate jumping on that bandwagon) The stream as it is becoming known will allow instant delivery of breaking news to subscibers desktops. 2 obvious benefits being, bringing newsmedia into the instaneous paradigm that is now craved and potentially more importantly, the ability for people to subscibe to these streams which will obviously also give the best streams the opportunity to charge for subscriptions.
While this looks something revolutionary, it is in fact evolutionary taking the tried and tested newpaper model and delivering it using the most efficient modern technology.
(sorry if the grammar is abysmal, distinct lack of sleep)
I agree with the post above (by Will?) concerning the evolution of news delivery through streams.
Google is a software internet company period end of.
Google Has nothing to do with the newspaper Industry it is absolutely astounding that they expect to be entitled to switch from software to move in on the news Industry through un everyday means.
The software should be for the news establishments benefit and after Google or do they feel the internet would be threatened in the near future and want to move in on the Newspapers as covering base?
Like all technology its invented to make the task easier not to dictate and sneakily game change on a companies whim,
Why should software developers have ( Two Professions ) I suppose the Google work ethic has come undone.
What was it ” do no wrong ” ?
Certainly didn’t take to long to end after the money started to roll in…
They are not helping Journalists period nor do they help make content that has any value through free distribution in an unfree world, it has never happened this way and won’t it is essentially a very greedy software company holding others to ransom.
As someone mentioned above Newspapers essentially print the same news,
Well sir you could not get any more obvious, but since we have just gone through the age adolescenese of abundance and of no consequence you are now suffering from the reaps of a bad Newspaper Industry that cannot pay for content that comes from good journalists as its nibbled away on by some animal in his parents basement unemploying the journalists out their that that actually get out to do work rather than bunk off in mum and dads house.
If they want to help how about make a program that can actually stop breach of copyright of Journalists and Photographers intalectual work from being distributed freely without consent.
Oh I forgot Google are Greedy and don’t want to pay for it just give us your money whilst we leach off of Society.
Batman, read this and reconsider:
http://www.tech...oogle-magazine/
I’m not talking about the advertisement, or the issue that Print is out of date to Electronic means,
I am talking about Google as a Software Company assuming that they can dictate the way News Industry can pay for intalectual content from Journalists and Photographers especially regional news and Freelance.
Its the way Google are coming in and taking it from under the feet of the News Industry, it in no way helps journalists or the quality of their work or the “Newspaper” Industry.
If they wanted to help and they don’t as News is extremely important, it would be through protecting the copyright of the Journalists and Photographers so careers are not waisted for a greedy few.
I reconsider you are not realistic and uninformed onto the runnings of media.
That’s a good point: copyright is very important and qualitative journalism shouldn’t be copied. Yet Google doesn’t have journalists as a core-audience, it’s all of us. So don’t wait for Google, you’re too few.
Why don’t you build a protective software yourself? Or join a company doing this? I’m sure this is promising business. Perhaps you’ll sell it to Google one day
I’m more informed in the runnings of business & marketing. Point taken.
In Belgium they distribute free newspapers in trains & metro stations. It’s free, content is reasonable, yet full of ads. What bothers me is that I prefer this latter newspaper above paid high-quality ones.
Why? There’s a psychological barrier between paying and not paying, in literature referred to as “the penny gap”. Yet, when something really interests me, I’d be happy to pay for a qualitative report with the full story, balanced opinions, in-depth interviews…
My conclusion: I agree, people will stop paying for “a bit of everything” (=commodity info). In contrary, there’s much more value (and money) to make with “everything on a bit” (= niche reporting).
There are only two consumers: End Consumers & Government. And as the people are the Government, really only one, End Consumer. So how can any business, build a business model, without the End consumer… All water leads to the Ocean… Oh, and I got it, how about we give it all aways and make it up in T-Shirt sales.
Very true. I visited a site that gave the opening few sentences of an article, then required subscription to view the rest. I did a search and found the same item for free elsewhere. In this instance I think the article was derived from a wire service and not original content from the site, however even if it had been, my bet is someone would simply have copied it, and it would have gotten out to be had for free.
Robin, thanks for taking the time to read the article and respond, but I’m going to have to take issue with a couple of points…
Firstly, I dont’ think it’s about the mainstream versus bloggers – it’s mainstream *and* bloggers. There are things bloggers do that the mainstream apparantly can’t, and vise versa. it’s hard for those of us with zero budget and near-zero time to do investigative reporting. (I knwo the mainstream don’t do much these days but they do some…). And could any blogger have stumped up the cash for those expenses details?
We do need an established, powerful, well funded press – even one as crappy as we currently have. Those fools thought they could carry on as they were forever and the ‘net would just fade away – those of us on the outside told them that wasn’t so, but the publishers and editors believed it nonetheless. Now they are screwed. they’re skint, getting skinter, and they’re panicing. What I really dont’ want to see is a state subsidised press – on either or both sides of the atlantic – but this is what the momentum is building behind. Hence my article. Oh, and why google? Well why not. It could be MS or anyone – doesn’t matter. If it were successful, others will jump in too.
BTW, why dont’ you fellers get along to Cif and dive in there?
” Firstly, I dont’ think it’s about the mainstream versus bloggers – it’s mainstream *and* bloggers. There are things bloggers do that the mainstream apparantly can’t, and vise versa. it’s hard for those of us with zero budget and near-zero time to do investigative reporting. (I knwo the mainstream don’t do much these days but they do some…). And could any blogger have stumped up the cash for those expenses details? ”
Exactly.
I never said you wrote about the blogger vs. mainstream debate, I just pointed out that that was what Techmeme was buzzing about this weekend.
“We do need an established, powerful, well-funded press.” – I agree, but I don’t think we have the same definition of ‘press’, i.e. I think the Internet as a whole already is the established, powerful, well-funded medium needed to carry information and spread news.
As for your last question (for unaware readers, CiF stands for ‘Comment is Free’, the online comment section of The Guardian newspaper), asking it answers it.
i.e. I think the Internet as a whole already is the established, powerful, well-funded medium needed to carry information and spread news.
Category error.
The internet is boxes and cables, ones and noughts. The internet alone does squit. It needs human motivation, content, direction. In the “press” concept not only do we have the mechanics – publication – we also have goals, ideology, mediation, spin, a few facts, a lot of opinion – and *some* genuinely new and original info/thinking. That will never come free.
Some bloggers may, for love, use their own time and own resources to deliver original content, but the *range* currently pursued by the mainstream media can not be delivered by privateers. It is in all our interests that the press survives – although I accept and hope it will be base don a more sustainable model, financially – and that it survives without government hand outs.
I would pay a reasonable amount for occasional quality articles in areas I really care about. Can’t see that sustaining a business though.
MSM is failing because it treats the American public as idiots that can be repeatedly and outrageously lied to with impunity.
Naturally the reader is not amused.
The issue is not business models. The issue is public trust.
iTunes. It was said that people would never pay to download music if they could get it for free from P2P networks. However, the attraction of P2P wasn’t just the price, it was the user experience, which was something Apple understood.
If a system could be worked out that eliminated the overhead of registration and entering card details, then very small paywalls will not necessarily deter everyone. I’m not sure about paying per article, but I might consider, say, 10c for 10 articles from a site known to deliver quality content.
Exactly, a cent a time – licenced for viewing for 24 hours. Why not? If you are prepared to put the effort in of *reading* the stuff, why not pay a cent for it? Who among us would end up paying more than two or three dollars a day? And is that such an imposition?
I advise you to follow the last link in the post. An excerpt, again quoting Van Alstyne:
“News is not like an iTunes song; it’s perishable. Today’s front page is tomorrow’s fish wrap, and we don’t need to replay it. If anything, a reader benefits more from a second source than repetition from the first. Facts are delivered; songs and movies are created. Facts also can’t be owned, so when the Internet places geographically dispersed media in direct competition, the price of facts falls to marginal cost. In digital markets, that’s zero.”
Yeah but Robin, for a good solid century people were more than happy to pay for news that would be chip wrapping the next day. I still believe they will – if the price is right. Sure, you and your colleagues may chase down free grabs, or wait for a legit free version to appear. But many millions more will be happy to pay a tiny amount for the convenience of flitting from site to site, getting what they want when they want it.
Anyway, we’ll see. I think it will be tried, we’ll see if it sinks or swims. SO long as you can persuade Obama not to deliver another damn bailout, this time to the press.
Note for American readers – over here, they used to wrap our fish and chips in day old newspapers. Oh, and chips are french fries. Well, kinda.
“for a good solid century people were more than happy to pay for news that would be chip wrapping the next day” – sure, an entire century without any alternatives to it.
Of course people will pay for what they think is worth paying for. But that’s an entirely different discussion. My point is that micro-payments won’t be saving newspapers, and it won’t be ’saving journalism’ (what does that mean anyway?).
And oh, I’m from Belgium.
Frank, the problem with your micropayments is that they’re not micro enough. It stands to reason that in order for micropayments to work, you would need to get significantly more per reader than you can get per advertiser, since you’ll be dealing with a much smaller audience. But a penny per article is equivalent to a $10 CPM (for simplicity’s sake, I’m keeping all my numbers in USD), which isn’t a whole lot more than what publications get from advertisers. And keep in mind that the whole reason we’re having this conversation is that the current model is unsustainable.
As I said on my blog (in a post Robin was kind enough to link to above — http://tr.im/lcuY), publications need to get away from selling by the article and think instead of selling a user experience, of which articles are only a piece. Otherwise, they’ll be stuck in a commodity business, and their profits will continue to dwindle.
Hey Robin, that’s a good point. I do think, though, that micro-payments are part of the solution. When iTunes broke-through it wasn’t the micro-payments which made that business model possible, but the iTunes store. Apple made it easy for everyone to get a song.
Now what the newspapers have to do is create content worth paying for, and making the payment and distribution so easy that it isn’t convenient to go elsewhere to look for it.
For Example, if I had the option to easily browse through the articles, pay for the articles I want to read and get add-ons such as:
+ Audio version to listen in my iPod.
+ Get comments in my twitter account (Platform for discussion).
+ Get recommended articles and related sites.
I would definitely love paying for it!
Um, so why on earth would any web surfer want to have their every click and news story read TRACKED even moreso by a company like Google? Terrible idea. Besides – they forget one key thing here: NEWS STORIES & ARTICLES ARE TEXT — WHICH MEANS THEY COST LITTLE OR NOTHING TO REPRODUCE ELSEWHERE.
So, if a person doesn’t care for reading news at Website A that charges micropayments, they can simply wait 5 minutes for it to appear on Website B, C, D, E, etc. for FREE.
Future “journalism” will be done by individuals like your everyday blogger. Perhaps more “upper class” sites will use Bloggers that are verified/certified to ensure if anything libel is written there’s a real person to blame. In turn, it would also boost the writer’s credibility in the web world.
However, the days of big papers with tons of salespeople, fancy offices, big CEO/owner paychecks and lavish parties are GONE. Welcome to the world of a half-dozen writers and a tech person or two running a site that reaches millions of readers a week. Oh, and BTW – none of them will be rich.
I have been a daily reader of Newyork times both physical and online versions , although I am still very much willing to pay for my morning paper..never even conidered paying for the same content online. may be because nytimes.com is free mostly,except for few portions.
Same is the case with WSJ , I read WSJ physical but never even try to go to their online site,since most is for a fee.
Dont know why I have such a distinction , Personally feel NYT & WSJ & others might make more money from Ads than subscription..will they make a profit well thats for MG & others to decide.
we put tipjoy and some other micropayment type of things on http://www.worstpizza.com and made the huge amount of ZERO! So these things really do not pay off in my eyes
well if you offered more than the “worst” people might pay
BTW, in the same way ‘micropayments won’t save the Venture Capitalism’… hehe. You know what I mean, they are all jumping on the micropayments bandwagon right now with their shitty ’social applications’ – won’t happen.
Maybe this is worth an article or two, guys?
Nobody will pay for online content unless it is significantly better than alternatives *and* aggressively managed such that it isn’t copied on the Web. It can be done.
But even so, the costs to produce consistently high-quality content are astronomically high and there are no margins in it.
The only way out IMO is for the newspaper industry needs to get much more aggressive & agile about online advertising — creating or partnering with companies who provide unique local advertising products that people don’t hate.
I disagree. I’m neither much of a blogger or in anyway affiliated to the newspaper industry. However, I’m sick and tired of reading BLOGS for news. BLOGS are opinions, they’re not real news. You could argue that even the media does it, but thats bias. It’s not opinion. There are people who have actually had some sort of formal education and or training to become a journalist. You dont want people’s opinions forming news, you want the news to form peoples opinion. Putting up a paywall like the WSJ or even perhaps some sort of media pass for paid content is better than just free and BAD journalistic content. Free is always good, but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work!
What happens when a real journalist, with a formal education and / or training, becomes a blogger? Does your head explode?
Not every blog only delivers opinion. Not every publisher only delivers news items.
So you’ll pay the WSJ charge. Fine. What about the next generation?
They’re screwed.
Like fine artists and musicians, there will be a handful that can make a decent living and even fewer than will be super successful.
Everyone else will do it as a hobby and never achieve anything more.
No micropayments. Here are nine ways newspapers can survive: http://bit.ly/2Smfr.
“News is not like an iTunes song; it’s perishable. Today’s front page is tomorrow’s fish wrap, and we don’t need to replay it. If anything, a reader benefits more from a second source than repetition from the first. Facts are delivered; songs and movies are created. Facts also can’t be owned, so when the Internet places geographically dispersed media in direct competition, the price of facts falls to marginal cost. In digital markets, that’s zero.”
This is why you fail to understand journalism, already assuming the tools that are developed by software developers is the medium that will replace the Newspaper Industry,
Value comes from value not the last common denominator when all else fails on the ticking box of white washing.
The point you are missing, software developers are not the answer and never will be because they fail to grasp the (sense) of the everyday concepts of the average man and women living their day to day lives.
Its Google wanting dominance of the News distribution and it won’t happen the way you want it to, sorry.
“Value comes from value not the last common denominator when all else fails on the ticking box of white washing.”
What does that even mean?
Also…
“The point you are missing, software developers are not the answer and never will be because they fail to grasp the (sense) of the everyday concepts of the average man and women living their day to day lives.”
I’m confused here. Are you saying software developers will become journalists? And because of that, they’ll be lousy at it? If not, you might want to look over what you post before you hit “Add Comment”…because your post makes absolutely no sense.
I’d be afraid if YOU were in charge of deciding what makes journalism good or bad!
Their is a difference between a journalist reporting and a software developer or company.
The Journalist / News Photographer goes out and services the media industry through regional coverage and freelance sourcing so software developers can breach the copy right to spread it around the internet for absolutely free.
Intellectual property is not free and in all cases most photographers and journalists are not asked for their copyright to be syndicated it is ( freely ) stolen, this lowers the bar with quality reporting and the quality of Newspaper Establishments.
If Software can really help protect this value and intellectual property grafted through a career of work, preserve this right.
Or are YOU saying that the cart should be in front of the horse, and this luxury be free for software developers and companies at the expense of news establishments and the Reporter and Photographer?
I must be missing something, but what I don’t understand is how all these blogs are able to survive and pay people (sometimes quite well), yet newspapers are unable to do the same. We should all be worried though, because without someone actually going out and getting the news blogs won’t have anyone to get their 2 paragraph story summaries from.
How old is the average reader of this blog?
Twelve?
Are all of you people out of your minds? Think of TC, Venturebeat and Valleywag like generic drugs. They do much of what the brands do, only cheaper. They keep their costs way down, and sometimes their quality as well.
The result: Pricing goes down down down and it’s a race to the bottom.
Under such a scenario, how much do you think these blog reporters get paid? I bet no one makes more than $16 k per year. Not a one.
So, it’s a GREAT job for people who are being subsidized by someone else. Like Mom and Dad. Or for Strippers with fast typing skills and time on their hands during the day.
But blog reporting as a profession? Look around. Find out the best names? Ask them what they get paid.
Then you will have answered your question.
Well in fact, before these blogs appeared, there was no coverage of any of this stuff, so saying that they’re dumbed down versions of ‘real’ reporting is incorrect. I’d go so far as to say it’s the other way around after reading the innacurate drivel in the newspaper about things I know in depth.
By the way, the journalists that I know get paid squat, so I’m not sure you’re making a valid distinction there.
It’s interesting that in this debate many have become incensed by the idea of a bailout (and I largely agree), but few if any have pointed out that what we’ve had to date is something equally distasteful – a subsidy. At the end of the day basic economics says that if something costs something to create (whether its a blog, traditional news or a field of corn) then somebody has to pay for it sometime and in some way or people will stop producing it.
Until recently, with print still being a healthy business, print subscribers subsidized online subscribers. Now, with the ratio reversed, the business model is challenged. Not really surprising, but the cries that this should all be free should consider that the only reason it has been is that someone else has been paying for it.
Another flash point of former times was the idea that ads can corrupt the news. It’s certainly true that editors get pressure from management not to be unduly harsh to big advertisers. I’ve certainly seen the same thing at a larger scale in blogs – larger scale since there’s less of a formal code of conduct and so mixing advertorial with the news without disclosure, for example, is actually big business. At least with a secondary revenue stream, media have some ability to resist advertiser demands.
One thing seems clear – there isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. There will be hybrid models (perhaps the most successful is NPR which does voluntary payments, relatively low impact ads and gets some subsidy), micro-payments, some ad supported models, a lot of blogs and who knows what else. But sweeping statements like “news should be free” are insupportable and don’t really advance the discussion much.
Moron readers:
These knuckleheads are only providing half of the argument.
Ask them to post their salaries to you. Then you’ll really know whether they are full of shit or not.
My bet: They are entirely full of shit. And not one of them can afford to purchase a home.
I’ll never grasp how people like you fail to realize any argument you make, no matter how well thought-out (not in this case but I digress), becomes obsolete instantly when it’s shared anonymously.
Nah, that logic don’t work. Just like your article has problems. Whoever thinks twitter stream is the news of the future–man we are in big, big trouble.
Newspapers want Google to help bail them out, but frankly, newspapers should be where Google is today. The fact that they’re begging for help from Google is proof of that.
Newspapers were too busy trying to apply old business models to the internet 10-15 years ago, failed to see the future, and underestimated the power users would eventually have to circumvent media control over information. It’s too late for micropayments. It’s time to innovate:
In lieu of a trackback: “How Can Big Media Get Back in the Game? The Big Bang Business Model”
http://tr.im/bigbangbiz
When I read about the history of newspapers a hundred years ago, I see a low tech, expensive version of today’s bloggosphere.
Strikes me as the problem is that newspapers cant get users to view the news they’ve actually produced on the actual producers web site (thus losing advertising money). This is because anyone can copy the text and reproduce it somewhere else in seconds.
Maybe they should just render the text as a jpeg/bmp. It would take far longer to copy by other bloggers/news sites and would mean that people actually come to the news site for the news (thus guaranteeing users actually saw the advertisement on the news site).
Maybe have news rendered for the first 24 hrs and then put into to normal text later on (so it can be indexed by google et al).
I know pdf readers can scan images and get content but it would be far more time consuming for your average content thief and that could buy a new site the time it needs to be unique for a few hours. That could buy the newspapers guys some time…
At the end of the day the digital battle is all about this: Many businesses have always been about the delivery of content not the content itself. There has never been a “record” business, or a “newspaper” business, or a “movie” business. The business has been about cutting silver discs and shipping them, or cutting trees and printing stuff on paper then shipping them.
The value in the business has been the method of delivery. Digital DESTROYS that concept. So unless you can protect how your content is “delivered” you dont have a business (using the old business model). Any business that can be delivered digitally and provide more or less the same experience as when it was delivered manually is finished…
OCR readers could translate a story from a JPG to TXT in a matter of seconds. Not a real solution.
Problem is, you can’t really protect TEXT. You really can’t. And with everyday people getting savvier in the ways of making MP3s, turning DVDs into video files, creating ROMs from games, cracking software apps, any copy protection a company attempts will be easily cracked. Plus, as demonstrated by the failure of DRM in the Music industry, people don’t like the idea of paying for something they don’t really “own”…
Newspapers and magazines online need to give readers a reason to be on their sites…and that probably won’t just come from stories. Let them have forums, user reviews on restaurants, movies, etc. and discussions about local topics or stories. Give them a place [and a reason] to be more involved.
This issue of content clearly is something that the Main Stream Press just doesn’t get. This fact comes out in a blog article from a former editorialist:
The Newspaper That Fired Its Readers:
http://www.econ....05.03/403.html
The topic of “Micropayments Saving Journalism” is of course, off point. Only Journalism can save Journalism. Best place to start–shutting down the J-Schools. Most “journalists” have little knowledge of statistics, basic math, finance, US/World History, Science or government. They have, for the most part, become little more than stenographers. Given them an Internet-based collection scheme is not going to fix the basic problem that they simply are too ill-prepared to understand the world, much less “change it”–which seems to be their current, collective, mission.
There are just too many newspapers for a “wired” world. Best to let the industry go through a mini-meltdown, and the strongest will survive. It’s the natural way of things.
I find it highly ironic that this blog post is about a newspaper article, without which the blog post would not have existed and ads would not have been served. Bloggers telling newspapers to go to hell do so at their own risk (I don’t work for a paper). I’d say at least 50% of the blog posts on many of the most popular blogs are anchored on content from major news sites. Some of this content (from the major sites) is superfluous, no more that prettied up press releases. But not so much that, say, if NYT went away the bloggers wouldn’t notice and be poorer for it. The type of sentiment expressed in this post makes me wonder why bloggers aren’t more interested in trying to help MSM survive and create a model that works for everyone. Bloggers should watch out what they ask for — I’d wager that the blogosphere will be far poorer if it truly is reduced to people (like most of the stuff at TC) writing about news in a passive fashion rather than the more active news reporting as pursued by the best MSM (and some of the best blogs like TPM, Muckraker, etc).
Actually, it’s about a blog post published under the Guardian umbrella. I’m not cheering for MSM to die, but arguing micropayments are not a solution.
I don’t think we should be blaming the internet for the demise of newspapers — if you want someone or something to blame go to Michael Milken and all the m&a’s of the 80’s and 90’s and the early part of this century — they are the one’s who bought and destroyed family run papers and news companies, sold off pieces, and walked away with huge profits leaving the new conglomerates saddled with debt — that is why newspapers and much of the news business is crumbling — its also why most of main street is crumbling too. Blaming Google is wrong — if anything, Google maybe their salvation.
Fact is the demise of newspapers and print journalism will place poorly paid niche bloggers like Waulters, Lacy and Siegler in position of very limited leverage–and terrible work conditions–because Not Thin will play one off the other and replace them with other readers–kids in school–at less cost to his overall margins.
Story implied “Print Journalism behind the times” piece when in fact it is an indicator to future landscape of tech journalists.
Don’t believe me. Look up Alaska Miller, Paul Boutin, and Not Thin’s former poolboy Mark Hendrickson.
Ask them what they make a year. After you wake up on the floor, you will realize this is more serious than the authors themselves realize.
And THAT is a very, very big problem.
micropayment is not a solution for news paper. But then how do they get money ?
Google ads ..nope .
Can they start delivering a weekly newspaper free of cost if some one subscribe to them monthly ?
Micro-payments are not a full answer, but they are a possible tool not only for news content but even for search content. The key in any content charge is the ‘premium’ aspect: how unique is your data? Because if the data is not unique, users would not pay for it but find a free substitute. The success of Bloomberg and the Economist proves that there is a paid model for premium content.
The debate should now be focused on the ‘reporting’ sector: from investigative media to news coverage. We are likely to see less players in this field because there are too many (and after some point, the curve of more journalist does not bring new added value) and because it is not monetiable. Probably the only solution for this type of content is in bundling, and, as Mr. Van Alstyne well put: in combination with technology and paid models when this content is distributed to handhelds etc.
The other revenue source for online content is advertisements – but in the internet era it developed into context free mass of disruptive content that urges that users to install ‘ad block’ add-on and avoid it entirely.
Media Corp and other media powerhouses should build funds that invest directly in these solutions, because they would eventually make the difference between their demise or survival.
As for contents such as TC – its important to remember that they are very relevant as a premium addition to established content – but can’t – and won’t – replace them entirely. And in my perspective, it is in your best interest to see self sustaining newspaper industry.
Micro-payments would be a terrible idea. You’d force users to pay for a product that they might not enjoy consuming. Donations would be a better option, as it give consumers a powerful way to show publishers the type of content we want more of (though it also has potential for abuse, e.g. a positive review of a company gets tons of donations from an “anonymous” source).
Donations + advertising is the way to go. Newspapers could even offer donation subscriptions, where readers pay $5 per month and then use their donations as a social proof for the article. The donations could be show directly on each article as a social vote of approval for the article, encouraging other readers to donate and read that article.
OK, you’ve all argued and argued. Even after all this arguing, considering the idea put forth that twitter will be the news of the future, I am ready to start making my micropayments. Sign me up Google!
I think we have allowed a generation or two get all the way through education system without understanding journalism, ethic, power. Twitter and Facebook are ruining a generation. People actually believe in the stream. The stream is a sewer.
Micro-payments are a continuation of the pricing folly of much of main stream media.
The true value of content has been systematically mis-priced for at least my lifetime and punting a solution where publishers/authors/creators get a few cents an article is not going to change that.
Even if it is effective (consumers actually use a micropayment engine, which is doubtfull) the revenue raised still won’t be enough to support any but the biggest publishers/destinations and will probably serve to increase the rate of decline of smaller MSM destinations and increase the rate of consolidation.
Did the author even bother to read the forum he quotes with such satisfaction? The quote he gives is torn out of context from an opinion piece arguing that the future is subscription-based – not free.
> There are some content providers out there who
> have figured out how to build a business without
> the need for people to pay to support them
No there aren’t. There are just content providers who have managed to disguise how you pay for their services.
“I mean, who CAN’T write nowadays?”
Lots of people. Though to be honest, it isn’t so much about people being unable to write, it’s more about people being unable to write ‘well’.
Even then, those that can write well and do so online are without the benefit of all the sundry proofers, subs et al employed by print media to ensure they’re copy is as tight and error-free as possible.
When news organizations put up paywalls, will you really choose to live in ignorance to stand on the principle that people who produce content should give it away for free?
Don’t tell me bloggers or Twitter will ever equal the New York Times or the Washington Post. That level of quality requires hundreds of full-time professionals, which people working for free simply cannot provide.
Paper is obsolete as a delivery device. The professional news organization is still necessary.