Walter Isaacson on why your newspaper is dying and how to save it:
Newspapers have more readers than ever. ... The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news ... a tipping point occurred last year: more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines.Isaacson helped pioneer that trend. In 1994 he was the managing editor who made Time Inc. the first major news organization to publish on the Internet (with an assist from yours truly, BTW*)
Isaacson suggests that the next business model for the journalism industry will be based on micropayments. The prediction that journalists and other authors will one day support themselves through micropayments has been around for years. I have long been skeptical of that prediction, and the marketplace has yet to prove me wrong. Isaacson argues that micropayments have not yet taken off because the existing solutions have been poorly implemented. But I think the more serious, and possibly insurmountable, obstacle to acceptance is the "mental transaction costs" problem that he also mentions. Consumers are put off by the friction of having to make large numbers of small purchase decisions - we just don't like being nickeled and dimed, and there aren't enough of us who would be willing to pay per click to read the news. (A more comprehensive discussion of problems with micropayments may be found here).
How will society compensate journalists? Who knows, but I would imagine that the "public radio model", involving major donor sponsorships and community memberships will be an increasingly important part of the answer.
--
* I was the technology guy on an outside consulting team which advised Isaacson and his people on business and technology strategy. (That was in summer/fall 1994, in the VERY early days of the commercial World Wide Web. For those of you who remember that far back, THIS was the hottest thing on the Internet at that time).
So I guess that's another reason for the Seattle Times and the P-I to fear Sound Politics. Not only do we provide superior reportage and analysis but we even helped start the trend that is putting them out of business!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 06, 2009 03:32 PM | Email ThisImagine that - the Seattle snobs will never be able to live it down that they town papers failed and Tacoma has something they can't sustain in Seattle. Wow!
And especially when the MSM is so lopsided and so unwilling to impart a basic objectivity in their reporting. That is dying for sure, as it should.
But there is plenty of room for new types of content that people will pay a modest, or even high price for, if it truly delivers exceptional value.
Forever, people like Joel Connelly have had their lies floated by the twin barges of classified ads and commercial ads. Those days are gone. Now people like Joel need to learn to tell the truth in a manner that is valued, or just go the way of the buggy whip.
You also get the smug anchors like Charlie Gibson who won't be around forever as more and more a la carte content shift the focus away from a few large centralized broadcast networks. No one is going to be watching the next generation of Katie Courics, so it's not going to become the overhyped job that it is today.
The left will eventually lose its stranglehold of the press, because the press as we know it is going away.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2009 04:04 PMI just love this description.
And, finally, the newspaper industry is dying.
- The old method of physically delivering blog entries on dead tree pulp is obsolete. -
It's very simple. Newspapers that embrace e-books will survive. Those that don't, won't.
Posted by: James on February 7, 2009 09:15 AMThey have a picture a bikini-clad flight attendant on the front page. The story is theoretically about the delivery of one Triple-7 to Virgin (no, not the F/A - she doesn't look like a virgin), and Richard Branson's bashing of Boeing for the late delivery due to the strike last year. It's really not about that - it's about, hey, look at them babies!
Three things to take away from this, people:
Action Item 1) Hooters sell papers.
Action Item 2) Don't believe all flight attendants look like this. You will be disappointed.
Action Item 3) Get rich, and you can be in the position of Richard Branson in the picture.
Have a good weekend, y'all.
Posted by: Dave LIncoln on February 7, 2009 01:07 PMThose who claim that "the Internet" will replace printed or online publications that hire and pay a living wage to professional journalists are wrong; unless, of course, these websites can also hire and pay a living wage to journalists.
I have my opinions too. But they're based on the work done by real journalists. Without them, we don't have much, since most of us aren't trained to do this work and we don't have the time it requires since we usually have full time jobs or businesses that get most of our waking hours.
You can hate "the media" for whatever ideological reasons. But, someone, somewhere, has to do the difficult, often complex, skilled and time-consuming work of a journalist. Much of it is very, very unglamorous.
As many problems as I have with every corporate media outlet, I rely on them for virtually all of my "news"; I get opinion, based on that news, from everywhere.
I don't have time to gather news and develop stories. I'm glad someone does, however, or I'd have nothing with which to develop my own, always insightful and cogent, opinions.
Posted by: JimCap on February 8, 2009 08:10 AM