Are you ready to pay for news stories?
Summary: Last year I wrote that quality news cannot continue to be free. This year, a lot of people seem to agree.
News is not a commodity, it just seems that way because it has been offered for free. News releases (press releases or social media releases) are a commodity, and freely available because they aren't "news stories," they are one-sided communications from corporations or their agents.
There is a growing realization that the right business model for newspapers is to charge money for the news. There is a lot of debate about how to do it, if it should be micro-payments, or if it should be a subscription for a package of news, or some other method.
The most important thing is that there is a broad realization that the free news business model is not viable. Whether we like it or not, some of the news, at least from quality news organizations, will no longer be free.
Some say they won't pay for it, they'll get it their news from bloggers, from other sources on the Internet. That's fine, that's their choice, people can try their luck looking at free news on the Internet and figuring out if they trust the source. If they have time on their hands, they can research if a news story is true, or has been "hacked," and if it can be trusted.
I believe that there will be enough people that will want to save time and go straight to a trusted source and pay for the news. That's the beauty of the Internet, it is not "either," it's "and."
Please see:Brill's secret plan to save the New York Times and journalism itself
A business model that is based uniquely on expensive editorial quality but that derives revenue only from advertisers who only indirectly use or pay for that quality is a business model that cannot work. There is simply no example, not one – in print, on line, in television – of quality content offered for free ever resulting in a viable business.
Let's talk about the economics of great journalism
Media innovation cannot be dependent on advertisers, they will not take the risk. Innovation must find a foothold with people who demand that great news be available.
Can the Press Fix Itself? | American Journalism Review
Brill is absolutely convinced of the soundness of his opinion — publishers have to raise their self-esteem, treasure what they do and get righteous about charging for it on the Internet. It's not the answer to how the press could have fixed itself a decade ago. For Brill, it's the answer to what needs to be done today.
This is capitalism, folks. Nothing worth something is free. A free press is worth 15 cents a day.
Cloud Journalism and the Fate of Beats
Jobs -- including jobs in journalism -- just aren't what they used to be. Earlier this week, consultant Robert Patterson observed after reviewing trends in unemployment statistics that "the idea of a 'job' as a full-time object that can support a person or even a family, is disappearing."
Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle
Not that it's anything we think the New York Times Company should do, but we thought it was worth pointing out that it costs the Times about twice as much money to print and deliver the newspaper over a year as it would cost to send each of its subscribers a brand new Amazon Kindle instead.
New York Times (NYT): Subscriptions Are A Great Idea!
Two weeks ago, we detailed our plan to save the New York Times (NYT):
* 40% cost cuts by 2010
* Increased print subscription price
* Implement online subscription fee
For the latter, we were roundly blasted by socialist digerati, who regard subscriptions as heresy.
Well, we're glad to see there is intelligent life where it counts--at the New York Times. Editor Bill Keller says the paper is committed to getting consumers to pay for its content and will explore the idea of online subscriptions. We only hope Bill's wisdom finds its way upstairs!
FutureWatch: The End Of The News Aggregators And The Future Of News
We need journalists, editors, sub-editors, photographers, etc, to help maintain high quality standards, to prevent misinformation, and to counter the spin of corporations and governments. We need these vital services as a society, so that we can make decisions about important things, such as the economy, the environment, healthcare, education, war. The quality of our decisions as a society is directly related to the quality of our information, to the quality of our media. Bad information leads to bad decisions. That's why figuring out a viable business model that can support professional media has become an extremely important issue.Would you pay for ZDNet?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Beware the dreaded bandersnatch
I read EB and AKH's stuff when I want to play with my Windows PC. If it wasn't there I would go to one of the other shortcuts I have set up in IE under /Computing/Installation Support Tuning. Just counted them - nearly 100. Same for News, same for Chess, same for Adult Content, ...
The general problem with many traditional industries these days is that they have not truly understood the danger and opportunity afforded by the combination of digitisation and the Internet. The prime example is the music business. I used to go and buy CD's. Now I want to download BluRay DVD's. It's not that I am unwilling to pay for anything ... I want to pay far less ONCE YOUR COMPANY HAS REALISED IT SHOULDN'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS IT USED TO AND INDEED MAY GO OUT OF BUSINESS. I used to stop by a newsagent to buy a PC mag. No more. Your business model must work on at least an order of magnitude smaller budget.
Also you have a vast number of competitors now who deliver direct to my doorstep (PC). Inevitably several people who have a keen interest in a particular (even niche) topic publish their work for free. They are skilled as well ... two of your bloggers recently rejoiced in the ecosystem which solves their problems when they get stuck.
I agree there needs to be a new model ... but it is not subscriptions to individual publications, nor 99c per track. I think a "$50 pcm gets you all video, music, books, news, ... ,<my special interests> you can consume" with revenue shared by popularity would work. The best publications would get the biggest cut.
Indeed I would say the answer to piracy and the answer to the newspapers' dilemma will be one and the same. [Individual subscriptions will produce the same outcome as the music business 'enjoys'.]
Nearly right
If only all jobs could be paid that way, we would have a true meritocracy, and the best people for any job would find themselves drawn to it, because they would naturally get rewarded for it.
But The American people voted that out.
They voted for Obama, and all those in Washington that don't believe in meritocracy, they believe we should all share the wealth.
More government and higher taxes. This gives them the Hillary mandate, "We know better how to spend your money than you do."
So it looks like the Marxist Obama will get us just that.
Better Teachers don't get better pay, and better Auto workers don't get better pay.
That is what Unionism is all about. Shit workers get the same consideration as those that bust their butts, and have better skills.
That all seems to be the new American way now. Incentives and capitalism is on it's way out.
I think your idea is better for the whole country, as 'incentives to do better' is what made this country great.
But alas, I am in the minority now....
Short Answer: No!
'there is a broad realization that the free news business model is not viable.'
So either:
1. Consumers need to start paying for it
OR
2. Providors need to start reducing costs and leverage new technologies/mechanisms to deliver their product/service and make a profit.
And the argument that paid for news from a 'journalist' is more reliable or better than info from bloggers and 'free' info sources is hogwash!!
I've read enough dodgy articles written by ZDNet 'journalists' alone to refute that claim.
Agree 100% - plus...
Just because a subscription model is the 'easiest' mapping from the old model of print newspapers (for example) does not mean it is valid.
Paying for it means we can trust it? Really?
"That?s fine, that?s their choice, people can try their luck looking at free news on the Internet and figuring out if they trust the source. If they have time on their hands, they can research if a news story is true, or has been ?hacked,? and if it can be trusted."
Just because we are paying for it, doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Take a look at Fox News. Would you consider that a trustworthy source? Hell, every major news organization in the US has direct ties to corporate interests, and thus, indirect ties to political ones. They are FAR from being trustworthy. Sorry, will take free news and my own research, over any corporate offering.
Forget "indirect ties". They've got direct ones.
just regurgitated press releases.
Oh, and why aren't more people upset about George Stephanopoulos communicating directly
with Obama's strategy team, and basically
channeling their talking points?
Sorry, but the "journalism" industry did this to
themselves by cheapening their product.
Also notice that the Wall Street Journal has
been doing quite well with a subscription model
for a better part of the decade. Clearly,
people will pay for quality.
Fox News
False information or misleading information?
Don't know what school you went to.
If 65% Dem. and 51% Ind. like it, then it is still possible that Rep + Dem + Ind liking it could come out to 32% total people in favor.
Your logic is as bad as your bias against Fox, proven to be less biased in the news reporting.
Even CBS had a story declaring how biased they were in favor of the democrats.
I would trust Fox news over the others...
Look at how the media sold Obama to the ignorant.
Why pay extra for biased news?
If people have to pay, they will also use it more because they have a 'vested' interest.
If they can't come up with something better than a lamebrained profit model, then let them fail.
The difference between print and tv news
Print journalists / photographers (for the most part) follow certain ethical guidelines. Of course there are bad apples in every barrel. But to basically place Fox News and say maybe the New York Times side by side, doesn't make any sense. Print journalists strive to seek the truth and TV "journalists" strive to seek ratings.
Oh and one more thing. As is the case in most major newsrooms in this country, ad departments are completely separate from newsrooms for a reason. If we had to worry about pissing off our advertisers every time we wrote a story we would be playing mouthpiece like television.
Television has to be biased because its main profit model is entertainment. Newspapers or online print news gains most of its revenue from ad sales (which is minuscule online). The quality news isn't free to produce, so why should we give it away?
Ok...how about the NYPost and Fox News?
RE: Are you ready to pay for news stories?
RE: Are you ready to pay for news stories?
The same thing goes on Internet news services. Either you have to subscribe them or you have to submit yourself to see **really lots of** advertisement. Even this page (talkback.zdnet.com) is filled with advertisement.
If I want IEEE magazines I have to subscribe them. Same thing for ACM. Same thing for Science, Nature, etc...
So, we don't have free lunches.
But the complain is interesting: it means that most news companies are not efficient enough to have their costs covered by fees and advertisement. Are they asking for a bail-out plan??? (LOL)
I already pay for my news stories.
RE: Are you ready to pay for news stories?
It's all in the delivery...
RE: Are you ready to pay for news stories?
I also buy full access to the electronic version of the Wall Street Journal, which bills my credit card quarterly. The online version allows me to create PDFs of their stories and archive what I find useful, and is also a valuable tool for living smarter.
PDF from Wall Street Journal articles
I am interested how you can create the pdf of the stories in the Wall Street Journal? I was not aware that option was available.
Yes, but drop the ads and reporters' personal opinions