In this section Simon talks about how The New York Times and The Washington Post should join forces to provide a paywall that's fair to the subscribers and not something that is just aimed to bring in as much money as possible ("pennies-on-the-dollar").
Section 2:
Simon talks about if a paywall would actually work: Using the comparison of cars manufactured in Detroit losing out to a better,new product. But newspapers, to vague suggestion of one.
Section 3:
Simon then talks about how a lot of newspapers failed because of not having dreams that could still apply today. He also talks about how, even though a lot of reporters jobs were cut over the years, the major newspapers are still successful because noone can compete with them.
Section 4:
3 scenarios are explored in which The Times and The Post go online and still survive amidst all the problems.
Summary:
The main argument of the article is that newspapers need to change their ways if they want to still be successful in today's newspaper climate. By embracing the paywall, but still providing a polished and professional piece of news for a lower price, audiences can still be informed but are now supporting this dying medium. Simon then talks about how if The Times and The Post did this, then other smaller newspapers would follow. This could be seen something of a saviour for newspapers. Furthermore, Simon talks about if a paywall would actually work, granted it would drive away readers. Lastly, he explored the outcome of 3 scenarios in which going online would bring. One: smaller, regional newspapers following in the footsteps of the giants to bring the industry back from the dead, so to speak. Two: regional papers collapsing would provide an opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organisations which would bring about a much larger revenue stream. Three: This is what Simon described as "the worst of all worlds". The Times and The Post would survive and become national papers. The regional and smaller papers would wither and die. With online subscriptions not bringing in enough revenue, a growing monopoly would occur.
Comments and Opinions:
Comment 1:
"I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.
Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micropayments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place.
Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.
Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section."
Opinion:
I agree to a point. I think that putting a paywall could help bring newspaper back form the brink, however, I disagree also. This is because I think that the proof is there. The Times and The Post are still popular regardless of what they do. This isn't necessarily the same for the smaller, more regional newspapers.
Comment 2:
"I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated."
Opinion:
I agree with comment to a point. I sometimes also think that news can't not be biased. But this Marxist view of America being controlled by the elite may not tough ground with a lot of readers. I sometimes do think that aspects of life are being controlled by the powerful and elite, but not to the point where we are mind-controlled zombies doing the work of shady and almost invisible characters.
Comment 3:
"Careful, there is a virtual generation gap separating the days of reader ownership and the current era of reader choice. People use aggregators because they want varied points of view from which to form their own opinion.
One of the few similarities the eras share might also work against a paywall model: readers/users will certainly only pay for a small number of subscriptions, if any.
Not since the 1970's have one or two newspapers been able to completely dominate a market, and ad-revenues have been on the decline as a result. The age of information distribution over the Internet then exponentially increased reader choices and likewise affected ad-revenue in absence of monopoly.
What newspapers need to accomplish for survival is to drive readers to their product. Offer better, more diverse and truly investigative journalism to serve a broader audience, be it local or world-wide. Draw readers with value, not fees.
Forget the days of reader ownership. That era died thirty years ago, and will never come back."
Opinion:
I disagree that readers will only pay for a few subscriptions, if any. If people see value in something, they will be willing to pay for it. However, I do think that more papers need to drive customers to them, not through lowered prices and more advertising, but through what has been said in the comment: "Offer better, more diverse and truly investigative journalism to serve a broader audience".
My general opinion:
I disagree that newspaper should blindly put their content behind a paywall, whilst continuing to provide mediocre content (not the case with all). I think changing the value of the content through better journalism and providing a more polished and professional paper (be it online or a hard copy) is what could save the industry. Too many gossip-columnist style paper exist in the world of today and its not just down to the journalists. It's down to the everyday readers as well. Albeit a paywall will help in terms of revenue and keeping these jobs alive to provide this "new" news, its not, and doesn't have to be the only way. Now if the content provided was above that provided from other sources, then I would-without a doubt-be willing to pay for it. But, if its something I know I reach from that other, lesser-read paper, then why would I even consider the former in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment