You could be forgiven for missing it the other day, because the New York Times buried its own news on page B-2. It was just a little story, quiet one. The Times announced that after two years, it was abandoning its attempt to charge for some of its content (mainly columnists and archives) in a service called "Times Select."
Henceforth, the newspaper will release everything it has to offer (save for a slice of its archives) from behind the pay wall. Thus ends the attempt by one of the country's leading newspapers to do what virtually no one in the news business has figured out to do -- charge for content on the web.
Two years ago, when I left Stanford to return to the private sector in the form of a startup in Silicon Valley, there was a certain excitement among media companies, because it appeared there might be a trend to do what the Times was about to do, and charge for some content.
Over the past two years, however, it has become brutally clear that content has to be freely available online. Even "free registration" represents an unwanted barrier many users are unwilling to tolerate.
Of course, there has long been one "success story" in the paid content game, and that's the Wall Street Journal. Alas, that story appears to be coming to its natural end, as well. Mogul Rupert Murdoch has indicated that once he completes his purchase of the Journal, he'll free its content as well.
Why is this all happening?
Media companies can make much more money from online advertising than they ever could make from paid subscriptions. Information wants to be free on the Internet, and that's simply the way it's going to be.
Any company foolish enough to continue to pursue subscription/pay wall business plans will be left in the dust.
This is not the moment, but there is a good argument to be made that content supported by advertising revenue isn't really as "free" as it may appear. But I'll save that argument for another day.
Meanwhile, for those who romanticize the lives of writers and journalists, let me ask you: Who exactly is going to pay us to keep writing in the future? How are we to survive as writers and support ourselves and our families?
Does someone see something I don't? Information may want to be free but those talented people who gather and publish it appear to be a seriously endangered species...
-30-
2 comments:
Forgive my ignorance; this is strictly from outside the world of journalism. However, it has always appeared to me that the overwhelming majority of newspaper revenues were from commercial ads. What, really, has changed?
I see what appear to be very successful web sites, without subscription requirements, doing a lot of news. The cyber world is screaming with competition as the technologies evolve. Writers, journalists, editors, ad men, and even consumers of news and opinion (which is my only direct experience), have all struggled with the new paradigms.
I am your age and have witnessed the same astounding changes these past few decades. From where we are standing today, looking back 40 years is breathtaking. Looking forward is exciting. Whatever all this portends, it ain't gonna be dull!
You have so much experience and you've braved scarrier stuff in the past; this should well be a time to "re-gage" and "re-engage".
Money for jounalists has not disappeared, it is just evolving in origin and delivery.
Thanks, anon, you are certainly right when it comes to people my age. I'll be fine. My concern is more for the young journalists...I hope they can adapt, and I expect they probably will.
As to your question, newspapers traditionally existed on a combination of circulation (newsstand sales), subscription, and advertising revenue. Their sweet spot was usually the "personal ads" -- which is where Craigslist has supplanted them in many cities. Those managing newspapers did not see this challenge until it was too late and now they are paying the price.
Post a Comment