The new ‘business model’ for newspapers, is really what’s killing them. There are three places that a newspaper stands to make money: one is newsstand sales, the second is subscriptions, and the third is advertising. When newspapers start putting their news up for free online, they are knocking that down to one revenue source: advertising.
When newspapers are forced to rely fully on advertising to make their money, completely new strains are discovered. It used to be that a website could charge visitors by how long they spent on the website. Theoretically, one could still do this, but in reality, the shopper would simply find a new website to use, for free. Once you have put free news online, you rely on who wants to advertise on your website to pay your bills.
By following this business model, the newspaper is cutting out the direct connection they had with their audience. They no longer deliver news to an audience who deliberately seek it, but they are giving it out for free to those who wander upon it. When they cut out the relationship they had with their customers, there is much less of a desire to write soulfully.
With newspapers going bankrupt, they are more open to new ideas, and more likely to form alliances with other newspapers. The news industry is not something that people want run by a “master industry” and bloggers are not an acceptable form of honest journalism. Newspapers could charge a few pennies per article, or a few dollars per month subscription. Obviously, there would be complaining, but eventually most would just click straight through if it was cheap enough. Any form of media could be charged and easily accessed, leading to an enormous amount of revenue. If people rise to the occasion so must the journalist.
Nice post here. You bring up a lot of good points, however there are a few that I would argue. First off, when you say "and bloggers are not an acceptable form of honest journalism." I believe that in the evolution of journalism, that just doesn't hold any truth any longer. They can be written from everyone from Joe Smuck to a professional journalist with a decorated career. With in the next few years I believe there will be blogs that are respected just as much as newspaper articles.
ReplyDeleteSecondly when you state that "Any form of media could be charged and easily accessed, leading to an enormous amount of revenue." I just don't find that to be true. In our society if an on-line business is stupid enough to make money by charging a flat fee instead of off of advertisements, they will not last long. In example think if Facebook started to charge for their services instead of making their revenue off of ads. I - along with a good 3/4 of the current users - would switch to a free social network, whether it was going back to Myspace, or a new one that was created to fill the void. I think this would hold the same for journalism outlets too.
I think I am also one of the few people who don't read newspaspers.I just feel like I don't have the time to just sit down and read the entire newspaper. We have something in common because if I just so happen to have a newspaper, I too turn right to the comics section!
ReplyDeleteI really like how you informed the reader of the three ways newspaper companies can make money. Which were: newsstand sales, subscription, and advertising.It is a shame that newspapers are going bankrupt. But no wonder this is happening when readers can read the paper for free online like you mentioned. Who would buy something if its offered for free?
I agree with you totally when you said "bloggers are not an acceptable form of honest journalism". Blogging reminds me of Wikipedia, anyone can blog just like anyone can post on Wikipedia. How do readers know if blog sites are credible? I know there are many forms of receiving news, but if newspapers are dying whats next to go?