Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute has the current cover story How to Save Your Newspaper at Time Magazine this week. Last night he was on the Daily Show to talk about what can be done to save the newspaper.
The problem is that fewer of these consumers are paying. Instead, news organizations are merrily giving away their news. According to a Pew Research Center study, 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. Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn't see fit to charge for its content, I'd feel like a fool paying for it.
He suggests paid content and micropayments on the Web as the new business model. David Kaplan at paidContent.org has more on how that might work.
Jon Stewart's idea to use chemically addictive ink might have some merit too. At least to save the printed newspaper.
Discussion
By Adam Dewitz on Feb 10, 2009
More on using micropayments: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-save-publishers/" rel="nofollow">Why Small Payments Won’t Save Publishers
By George Alexander on Feb 10, 2009
Over at the Silicon Alley Insider, they have done a calculation that purports to show that the New York Times would save money if it gave subscribers Kindles for free instead of printing and delivering the paper. I don’t think that approach would actually save the newspaper (and it would certainly kill off the paper version), but it does highlight the high cost of newspaper printing and delivery.
(Details and a link to the story are here: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle)
So what would “save the newspaper”? The key point that Isaacson makes in the video is that an ad-only business model will not sustain today’s newspapers as they move into an age of electronic delivery. I agree with that. But I don’t think a paid model will work either, at least not for the vast majority of readers.
I think we’ll end up with ad-supported channels to receive our news, but they won’t look much like today’s newspaper sites — and chances are, they won’t evolve from today’s newspapers. I imagine they’ll be internet-only startups, staffed by geographically dispersed reporters and editors.
As for today’s newspaper organizations: I don’t hold out much hope over the long run. This is a classic case of disruptive technology, and I’m not sure they can manage their way through the “disruption.”
By Erik on Feb 11, 2009
Newspapers will, in 5-10 years, be as alive as the CD is today. Nothing can save the printed newspaper. Nothing could save the LP. Micro payments could work if it was EASY and FAST. Or use ads. Or both. It's the distribution that fails. Please don't do the same mistake as the music industry.
By Ken on Feb 11, 2009
Newspapers like the electronic media, in general have taken positions that offend a great number of people exposed to the facts. Those offended tend to drop the source of irritation, why pay to be irritated. News is the last thing reported, how many fires, traffic accidents, and robberies in far off places can we relate to? News about the community will support a newspaper, but it needs to related to the locale reader, with some adjustment for the market. The cookie cutter may be in vogue, but it will kill the same paper, we have on USA Today and one WSJ, we don't need or want 2000 copies. Most are not as good anyway.
By Michael Josefowicz on Feb 12, 2009
@Ken,
Exactly. The problem is not saving journalism, it is inventing journalism. I think this Professor has it right.
http://pjnet.org/representativejournalism/post/1/
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free