Entry 1070, on 2009-08-09 at 21:06:43 (Rating 3, News)
I don't know how many times recently have I heard discussions of how the traditional media are dying. It really seems like its actually happening, especially when you consider the number of newspapers which look like they are just about to fold (if you'll excuse the pun). And attempts at adapting newspapers to the web have been successful in every way except financially (although it took years before web based newspapers were really done properly).
So is this really a problem and should we care? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Newspapers (both paper and web-based) certainly provide a lot of potentially good original material (and a lot of totally inaccurate crap unfortunately) and many of the new internet-based news and information sources (such as blogs) rely on them, so it does seem that if the newspapers were gone we would all be worse off.
Recently Rupert Murdoch has set a date to start charging for online news. Within 12 months he plans to charge for all content on News Corp's web sites. Its such an obvious solution to the problem - and I think a totally stupid one which is doomed to failure. He has been able to charge for material in the past so naturally the same model is all he can think of now. So much for the creative genius of big corporations!
If so many other internet services can run without charging then I'm sure news services can too, and news services who charge for access and set up blocks to prevent linking and quoting in search services and blogs will just become irrelevant. This is a great opportunity for new news services and News Corp's existing competitors to do well at their expense.
No one has succeeded by working against the culture of the internet. Even the RIAA have finally realised they are wasting their time. I'm sure our friend Rupert will get the message eventually too. But maybe his media empire will be wiped out first and more relevant and forward thinking organisations will take over.
Relatively speaking the Internet is still a little baby, and as it's use becomes more widespread, other mediums like print are feeling the affects. The recent hoopla over declining print media is no doubt a result of increased Internet availability and take-up. In the early days the free news web presence was fine because many still purchased newspapers, and classifieds were still flowing in. But the internet has encroached on that space bit by bit. Whether it be TradeMe/Ebay, dating sites, blogs (opinion), weather, TV guides, cartoons and online news, its all been having an impact on hardcopy. Paperboys worldwide must be applauding Murdoch's annoucement!
Anyway having said that I don't disagree with the thrust of your post. Somehow the news agencies are going to have to figure out how to cope. At the end of the day someone has to pay for journalism. Maybe Murdoch's decision to charge may not be the most innovative, but before you criticise, maybe you have some ideas for this changing industry?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 10:10:24:
I think people are very unsure about what Murdoch has done. Other media companies are just watching before they decide whether to follow or not. I don't think its likely to help print media much, even in the short term.
As I said, many other internet services run on advertising alone. I can't see any reason why news services shouldn't be able to do the same.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 10:47:26:
Re first para: I do not disagree. Will be interesting to see how things turn out.
Re 2nd para: Yes I did notice that you said that in your post, but you failed to specify which internet services. It's quite a broad term I am sure you understand. News agencies rely on journalism which relies on human talent and this comes with considerable cost (let alone other resources). Do you know of other internet services that have such a cost structure, and yet can survive on internet advertising? Unless you can specify some genuine models that the media industry can duplicate, I don't think its the same kettle of fish.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 11:10:10:
There are many services which don't charge even though they have a huge amount tied up in equipment and staff. Google would be an obvious example, but also many news services which aren't considering charging.
I speculate (and I don't have the figures to back this up) that the older news services are trying to prop up inefficient components of their business instead of just abandoning them. My preference would be for Murdoch's empire to die (I despise Murdoch, of course) and for newer services based entirely on the web to fill the gap.
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2009-08-13 at 07:07:38:
- Yeah those "examples" you gave will fill every news agency with confidence...
- Tut, tut, you shouldn't despise people so much. It really will do you no good! Play the ball, not the man.
- I wonder about the quality of these new online-only free-of-charge media outlets. Online advertising so far hasn't been known for being a cash cow!
Comment 6 by OJB on 2009-08-13 at 09:22:32:
Well maybe they won't be confident, but if they're not its their fault for not looking at how the internet works. If they can't adapt they will fail. Business always prides itself (falsely in my opinion) for being innovative and entrepreneurial. Time to see if that's true.
I'm criticising the person because of what he's done. Have a look at the way he acts. He uses every dirty trick in the book, avoids paying his fair share of tax, has truly repulsive political beliefs. A disgusting person even my the standards of the mega-rich.
I agree that the standards might not be great but are they really that good now? And on-line advertising not a cash cow? Google seems to be doing OK!
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2009-08-13 at 10:02:08:
So what you've actually provided is nothing but hot air and some fancy-sounding jargon.
Do you know him personally? If not, wouldn't it be (at least) better to be so judgemental after you've actually got to know the person?
So you only answer to everything is Google, hardly a renowned media agency. Maybe Google will be the next News Ltd, you may not like them so much then!!
Comment 8 by OJB on 2009-08-13 at 12:52:40:
Fancy jargon? Do you think? Gee, and I wasn't even trying!
I don't need to know someone personally to judge their actions. For example, I didn't know Hitler personally but I still don't like what he did much.
Plenty of other media sources have operated for free for years: CNet, ZDNet, etc. I know they are tech related but I see no reason that should make a difference. Maybe the only difference is that they "get it" and the media dinosaurs like Murdoch don't.
Comment 9 by SBFL on 2009-08-20 at 10:16:45:
At the end of the day you haven't presented a viable model for a real news agency.
Re Hitler - Godwins Law!!
The issue here is whether money is made from an online presense. This is without some backup medium. News media is much bigger than IT. I guess I hope there will be an online model that works, I just don't see one right now. Maybe charging is the only feasible option, in which case Murdoch is right.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2009-08-20 at 11:03:55:
We don't really know what's viable and what isn't though. That's why it will be interesting to see if Murdoch's attempt to charge for services will succeed. If other major organisations choose to not follow his lead then I think he will fail.
Damn! I was thinking of using Stalin as an example instead too! I think the point is valid, however.
Money is made from some online presences and not form others. There will be an on-line model that works because if/when Murdoch fails someone else will fill the vacuum. Isn't that how the market works?
Comment 11 by SBFL on 2009-08-20 at 22:41:39:
So you only have criticism, but no solution/viable alternative. How typical!! The vacuum will most certainly be filled if there is an incentive. I guess since the answer is not obvious, maybe we should care (to go back to your original question).
Comment 12 by OJB on 2009-08-21 at 05:11:25:
I keep saying the advertising model should be sufficient but you reject this for some reason even though it has worked well in other areas. That is the obvious solution but many existing news organisations either lack the imagination to move to this model or think they can maintain the older model of charging twice (first through advertising, then through payment). Maybe they are just too greedy? Big corporations self-destructing because of lack of imagination and greed? Surely not!
Comment 13 by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 07:19:56:
If the on-line advertising model for news agencies was enough, then don't you think they would be doing that? Then there would be no issue in the first place. Sorry, but the sole answer of "Google" is not enough, particularly since they aren't a core news agency.
Comment 14 by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 11:04:59:
Well I guess time will tell. One thing's for sure: its hard to make people start paying for something they are used to getting for free. This seems like a path to self-destruction to me. And I think greed and lack of imagination is a perfectly adequate answer to why they haven't already tried this model. There are plenty of other examples (the music and movie industries, for example).
Comment 15 by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 11:27:51:
Oh yeah, because the music and movie industries aren't greedy...
Comment 16 by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 11:34:13:
I don't quite see what you're trying to say. The fact that they are greedy was my point exactly.
Comment 17 by SBFL on 2009-08-25 at 12:02:31:
Sorry I thought you were trying to give other examples of online models.
Anyway, the "greed" excuse you continue to roll out is all a bit tiring. I think the more serous issue here is survival. These news outlets can see times are changing and they need to find a new model to survive. Indeed online subspriptions will be a hard sell for them. For sure there is no easy answer. Watch this space.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2009-08-25 at 12:04:26:
OK, so I think we have reached a point where we sort of agree then. The next two years will show which model will work (Murdoch wants his news outlets working on a pay model by next year).
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE