As news organizations face declining advertising revenues and rising costs, as they reduce the numbers of boots on the ground, of reporters out there gathering the news and watchdogging government, as government grows, we as a democracy face a difficult question: Who’s going to pay for quality journalism? How?
Missing in the Internet age, as empowering as it is for individual voices, is a sustainable online-only revenue model that can pay for the expensive enterprise of reporting, of good journalism that operates on the principle of verification. This is where you come in. I want your ideas, your thoughts, your perspectives on how to save journalism in an era of free digital content. We (the general public) don’t want to have to pay for anything, including copyrighted content, including full-length movies. But content isn’t free, or at least it isn’t produced without cost.
I will first present some models, including two you read about and heard of this week, but then I want to get your proposals. Help save journalism!
- Isaacson’s micropayment model that was discussed on The Daily Show, which would operate something like 99-cent songs on iTunes
- A nonprofit model, like NPR or the St. Petersburg Times newspaper, perhaps even government-subsidized
- DisneyWorld theme park model: An interactor pays a super-aggregator, like Google or TimeWarner, for a pass to ride all the rides, read all the content, for some determined period of time. Berry’s online databases are on this model.
- Start from scratch: Build up an online-only news organization absent the costs of print production and distribution or studios and broadcast equipment. Examples: New West, Politico.com, TalkingPointsMemo and VoiceofSanDiego.org.
- Branded, personality-driven stables of writers, like the HuffingtonPost.com, which draw visitors/interactors
- Your ideas HERE: So let’s apply the wisdom of the crowds here and generate some new ideas. Build off of each other’s ideas. By midnight Sunday.
February 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Considering the Internet is a free mega-house of information that is paid for through your cable provider or another company, I think that news organizations will have to establish a flat subscription rate to the online publication for unlimited information for an unlimited length of time. A one-time registration needed deal. But, even though some online publications are jumping on this already, I think why they fail to attract readers is because people can get the news they need from any search engine… which is FREE. Google, MSN, Yahoo! and other major search engines should be the first to establish a small fee, like the iTunes $0.99 per song deal. Then that would grandfather people into paying for information on publication sites like Washington Post and the New York Times. I believe that this could solve some of the revenue problems experienced with advertising, but these publications should still maintain a print edition either a niche audience or for people who can’t afford to pay for Internet. But also, whether or not a person should pay for a publication depends on the goals and purpose of the publication. If an organization is non-profit or government-associated, most likely they will not charge someone for access to information. It depends on the financial state of the company really. However, I believe that charging a flat-rate for information access on search engines and online publications is the best way to protect the efforts of good journalism. People will pay for what they need to know if it is accurate and relevant information written by people with good ethics and character.
February 15, 2009 at 12:12 am |
One obvious decision that needs to be made in the mission to save journalism is to tape a price tag to online news subscriptions that will in turn attach value to such material. However, due to a conditioned free-instant-access audience, one can’t help but to predict a portion (perhaps a majority) of those readers will simply settle for lower quality news from sources that will most likely continue to provide free access. Would a price tag only push a publication (i.e. New York Times) into an even more “elite” category? An Us vs. Them mentality would be sure to ensue, which would only separate readers further from established press.
Instead of slaving away to promote and compete in order to sell subscriptions, I think journalists need to work on portraying the idea of an actual partnership with the public. Sure, advanced technology has allowed the public to participate more than ever before, but there is a difference between “allowing” citizens to add to your content and collaborating with the public to produce and maintain quality news. Commenting on an online article or submitting some snapshots of a current event may help, nevertheless, how much more helpful is the citizen who fully understands that his or her financial invest is just as important as the investment of submitted information.
February 15, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
One option could be for online news providers to offer the days top stories free and then require readers to pay a small fee to access the rest of their online content. Perhaps this additional fee could be on a per day basis, per story basis, or readers could pay a yearly subscription fee for unlimited access to the content. This way news providers still allow the general public access to the day’s major stories without forcing them to pay or turn to a alternative, and perhaps less reliable, source of information. What happens, though, when the New York Times adopts a policy like this and the Washington Post continues to allow free access to content? I would imagine the New York Times would tank. There needs to be some kind of additional incentive for a reader to pay for the same news he or she could get somewhere else. I’m just not sure what that would be.
February 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm |
The problem with most online subscription ideas is just what Dr. Carroll said: people want to get everything they can for free, and since most people are used to getting whatever information they want for free, the chances of convincing them to begin paying for that information is slim to none.
Somehow, the general public has managed to overlook the fact that getting something for free means the producer of that something is losing revenue, a.k.a. the means by which they continue to provide their products.
I agree with Dustin that there would have to be some sort of extras available only to subscribers. The trouble is, there are already many online publications, communities, and game sites that give some things for free and offer “extras” for a subscription price. Most people just do without the extras, especially the large portion of younger internet users, who don’t have a credit or debit card they can whip out and use to subscribe via PayPal.
I hate to be the bleak doomsayer, but I think news organizations really messed up when they provided any sort of free content other than the very basics (contact information, about the company, etc) online. There are many profitable ventures online that have paying subscribers, but the thing these all seem to have in common is that they offered short-term, limited trial accounts, but charged for all content in the long-term. If news organizations had done the same thing, they would probably not have this problem now. People are always willing to take a raising or lowering of existing prices, but if the general public is used to getting something for free, it will be difficult to get them to accept even a very low price instead. FREE to $0.99 just sounds so much worse than $0.99 to $2.00, for some reason.
All things considered–the precedent of free news online, the fact that the public can always get their news somewhere else if one organization charges and another doesn’t, and the fact that the younger generation of internet users are more disinterested by far than previous generations in serious news coverage–I just don’t see a fool-proof solution that will save journalism. Employing interactivity, citizen journalism, online-based publications that cost less to produce, and attempting to make news relevant to a younger audience are all good strategies to begin employing NOW rather than later, but whether they will actually succeed…only time will tell.
February 15, 2009 at 10:00 pm |
Sorry for bringing Sweden up again… But it is spinning off on the NPR thing.
In Sweden we have something called TV license. We pay a fee that we pay for having a TV. We have random controls but pretty much everyone pays it. It is fee of about 75 cents a day. The money from the fee goes to our public television and our public radio. The point that I want to make is that even though we have there public companies that gets money from the viewer we still have other channels, radio as well as TV. They have managed to make it, providing free news but mixed up with entertainment. I think that we need to have something to make sure that the public is provided with truthful and important information to make accurate assessments. Maybe there need to be some kind of internet license, a fee that we all have to pay to be able to take part of the news. But then there would have to be the creation of a public news outlet and I don’t know at all how that would look or work…. Any ideas? Might be an impossible thought.
As others have stated, it is probably hard to get people to pay for something that have been given to them for free before, I think that journalistic organizations are going to have to rely on advertising to be able to live on. This might have to include that we as readers/listeners/watchers have to accept that the news that are given to us will be surrounded by messages from commercial agencies.
February 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
I have some similar feelings to that of April–attaching cost to previously free content is something that will be difficult to manage. I do however, like Briana’s idea of having a flat rate for unlimited access or content, perhaps something that could be bundled in with your internet service provider or web browser. Perhaps there could be certain levels, if you pay this level, you get this much free content. I am of course not very familiar with the business plans of internet service providers, but I feel there may be a way for journalists to collaborate with internet service providers. You may have the option to pay the regular price for internet service minus content from various reliable news sources or pay an extra few dollars to get unlimited access to that content as well. I’m sure there are a lot of holes to that idea, but it was something I felt could possibly be a business model.
I also think that utilizing citizen journalism and heightening journalists’ interaction with the public may help with the costs of having a large staff of journalists. Of course, the issue here is, how do you properly filter the news if most of your staff is untrained citizens? I feel that could be a way to train or guide citizens who want to be involved with providing news, perhaps some sort of interactive tutorial.
I think the subscription model should also be used, and perhaps the extras that aren’t provided with free access could be things like submitting content or adding comments to certain articles. Since this interactive tools are becoming a popular among citizens, they may be more willing to pay a subscription to access these applications.
I feel that with whatever pay model is used, there needs to be a large amount of information provided, or unlimited content, and it should be a fee that covers long-term access. I don’t think many people will be interested in paying $20 a month for information, or 0.99 cents a story. The more content provided for the longest time, the better.
February 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
Non-profit is also a great model. Getting funds through donations, and really explaining to citizens outright the need for funds to continue journalism is something that could help keep journalism afloat. PBS has created a fairly good model of non-profit journalism, and I think that’s definitely something that should be further examined.
February 15, 2009 at 11:27 pm |
I like Dustin’s idea about providing the most breaking, relevant news stories free of charge, especially with the rise of infotainment we’ve been talking about lately.
I feel like people would pay to know why Jessica Simpson is gaining all this weight quicker than they would pay for information on the economic stiumulus package. This may be a slight exaggeration, but it holds some merit. We’ve examined the demand for soft news in the market today. It may be profitable to offer this kind of news for a fee, while at the same time maintaining journalistic credibility with your free top stories. Not to mention, it is our duty as journalists to provide citizens with the relevant information they need to make decisions. It would be unethical to charge for that kind of vital information. But charging for celebrity gossip, which definitely has a vast audience, would not encroach on the journalist’s ethical responsibilities.
Speaking of responsibilities…
As a member of your COM 303 class, I cannot post on this blog without pointing out your grammar error.
In the first graph, in bold, it reads: “Whose going to pay for quality journalism?”
It should read “Who’s going to pay for quality journalism?” Just thought you should know. =)
February 15, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
The advent of Internet changes everything in the world. Journalism is not exception. There is not a place for journalism which is generated in order to meet the public’s awareness instinct. A bunch of information on Internet is already enough to meet the instinct. However, the problem is that the public cannot recognize what it is true or false by themselves because of the flood of information created by an anonymous person. It generates another reason why journalism should exist. Giving correct information through the verification, it becomes one of the important roles of journalism in the era of the free digital contents.
Unfortunately, I think that there is no future to media that only depend on the printing media. I am sure that all of distributions of journalism will be done by Internet for free, and also it happens right now. In this situation, in order to save journalism, I think media companies – or journalists – should try to specialize in the fields that they cover in the coverage. On basis of the specialization, the media companies can give a trust to their audience, and they can be target of the media companies. This can be connected with the increasing of the revenue. The main source of revenue in this era is totally advertising, and advertisers employ a variety of scientific strategies to impact on target directly. So, specialized media companies that have a certain target can get a lot of advertising which help to sustain their companies. Even though my opinions so far are not about a specific way to save journalism, I think specialized and departmentalized media platform can be a model of future media company.
February 16, 2009 at 12:52 am |
It seems to me that some stories, or partial stories, could be viewable for free online, but a charge could be placed on full content, either per issue or long-term subscriptions. However, I believe this would turn away many prospective customers who are used to getting this information for free.
Perhaps a new model could be created where subscription fees could be bypassed if the reader participates in an add campaign. An example would be an add offering coupons for a company and if the reader used a coupon then their subscription charge would be waved. This way, the advertisers make profit and are more willing to buy add space and the readers feel that they are getting a deal of some sort.
Another model idea could be something where the news is free, as it is now, but extras are offered for a fee (like subscribing to news direct to your phone or some interactive features made available).
The non-profit model looks good, especially with examples like Noelle’s PBS news. The problem I see with this is that with the failing economy, people are much less likely to give (as most non-profits are currently experiencing).
February 16, 2009 at 1:00 am |
Unfortunately, Dr. Carroll and others are correct in noting that problem of attempting to get the “audience” to pay for information that’s already free. In the perfect world I think that Dustin’s idea of providing some free contact, but making more available for. Finding people that will pay for in-depth news coverage will prove to be hard as there will always be free information available online. I almost wish that there was a way to get all online news providers to institute a fee at the same time. From this point competition will drive the market, making it more advantageous to have thorough reporters and credible sources. If news providers want to save themselves from impending doom, they should consider providing additional incentives to subscribers. Perhaps buying an online membership can lead to various retail discounts or special event passes. If newspapers can make paying the news “worth it” for those that are hesitant, they can stay afloat during these troubled time. Papers…charge and utilize your sponsors! (Freebies always help)
February 16, 2009 at 1:02 am |
My comment was posted at midnight EST.
February 16, 2009 at 11:09 am |
There is no easy answer to this issue. In my head the way to go about it would be much like what Briona presented. I’m sure it would be ugly at first but the hope would be that the quality and value of the product would still hold value and readers would buy into it. It would be important for readers to see why news funded by the reader is much more likely to properly present the needed facts whereas gov. funded news has corruption written all over it. The model is, in a way, democracy like. We don’t have time to gather facts and do the digging so we elect representatives to do it for us, i.e. pay our news provider of choice. Thus the goal of the news provider will be to effectively communicate its value and demonstrate that factual and needed news had to ride on the support of its readers.
February 16, 2009 at 11:13 am |
Right on topic, this story in the Los Angeles Times about Voice of San Diego, a nonprofit watchdog journalism operation publishing exclusively online. It’s a model, but not THE model, according to its founders:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia15-2009feb15,0,5233843.column
A key graph:
“Because it doesn’t have to print newspapers, Voice of San Diego puts the majority of its $825,000 annual budget into salaries for its 11 journalists, who make from $35,000 to roughly $70,000 and focus on government, education, law enforcement, real estate and science.”
February 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
A column at Poynter today discusses “looking beyond paying for content” online:http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=158738
The columnist seems to agree with most of you that the proverbial “pay-to-play” cat is out of the bag, or that it’s too late to ask Web users to pay for editorial content. The norms are too established.
His key graph:
“Instead, I think newspapers should syndicate and share their content (photos, stories, videos, reviews, etc.) — just like YouTube syndicates videos across millions of sites, iPhones, Kindles, and BlackBerries. Most newspapers have done a terrible job of gaining audiences this way. Advertising revenue would be much easier to capture if newspapers had bigger audiences through syndication.”
February 20, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
[...] Can it grow a long tail? I await your responses as you look to the long tail for an answer to last week’s question, how to save [...]