Words from another yard

Links and comment from Scott Rosenberg
Editor’s Pick
AUGUST 20, 2009 2:36PM

Something there is that doesn’t love a paywall

Rate: 11 Flag

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down!

– Robert Frost, “Mending Wall”

This week the conversation about pay walls for news sites online — a/k/a the “how do we make them pay for news?” question — has reached a feverish pitch. In what may well be remembered as the apex of the ostrich argument, the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi maintains, in the American Journalism Review, that newspapers should either “build that paywall high” or — this is where the ostrich beak burrows far below daylight — quit the Web entirely.

“Downplaying the Web, or dropping it altogether and going back to print only, looks not just smart for the struggling newspaper industry, but potentially lifesaving,” Farhi writes.

Never mind that newfangled printing-press thing! Can’t you see we’ve got scribes to support?

A number of exasperated media observers who think the paywall is a bad idea but who have grown tired of the endless debate are echoing Farhi’s cry: If you think it’s such a great idea, they’re saying to publishers, shut up already and just start charging.

For the thorough explanation of why the strategy is doomed, just read Alan Mutter’s post today: “Publishers consistently have told me that they fear they could lose 75% or more of their traffic and banner revenue if they started to charge for content.” My experience at Salon –where we briefly went “all pay” after 9/11, when the ad market disappeared — suggests that even this number is optimistic.

I’m exasperated too, but I won’t join the “put up or shut up” crowd because I’d hate to see the further ghettoization of oldfashioned journalistic expertise on the Web. New models for news are sprouting on the Web every day. The journalism profession has a wealth of expertise and knowhow; the support of a dying industry’s paychecks will continue to dwindle, but the expertise can still be transmitted to a new generation of journalism ventures. That won’t happen If major media outlets wall themselves off from the Web. They will cut off not only their revenue but also their chance to influence the practice of journalism as it evolves online.

The alternative to “go ahead, build your wall” is for newspaper companies to accept that monopoly profits will not return and cannot be replaced. (Yes, I know that accepting such a reality is difficult and unlikely.) Instead, begin exploring new business models by starting from the revenue side and seeing what sort of complementary journalism can be supported.

John Robinson, editor of the Greensboro News & Record, has taken this notion to heart and called for ideas and proposals. Brainstorming rather than masonry — what a concept!

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
"Can't you see we've got scribes to support?" Well done. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in the long run. No one really likes to pay for something they've been getting for free.
Just as long as the electronic format of newspapers does not supplant the "paper" or "hard-copy" form. I can't envision a scenario where I would prefer that a newspaper or a book be available only electonically. I spend too much time reading gobble-de-gook online as it is and my eyes are suffering from it.
Plus, I like the "old-fashioned" look and feel of that newpaper in my hands. Are we eventually going to have to take our laptops with us when we go to take a crap?
"Print Only" isn't smart at all, it's idiotic. It will only bolster the Web Only content providers. And by maying the Pay Wall "high," what you'll be doing is making news content an elitist medium, which will continue to divide the haves from the have nots. Whatever happened to my notion of making the content FREE and finding ways for the content providers to sell those eyeballs to advertisers, etc. It worked for broadcast TV and Radio for decades, because they had a UNIFIED BUSINESS MODEL. The problem now is it's a free-for-all. The big corporations, like NY Times and Wall Street Journal, etc., don't want to share with the smaller fry in broader networks, so they try to create exclusive systems. Who in their right mind would shell out money for multiple news sources when they can get it for free or are ALREADY paying for their Internet Service Provider or Cable or Satellite Provider or Cellphone Carrier, etc. More fees on top of more fees on top of more fees will not build audience. No wonder the newspaper business is dying with geniuses like that calling the shots.
I wish they would, I need newspapers t cause the organic gardening books say it's the best material to lay down underneath soil amendment to keep weeds away. Having a hell of a time finding newspapers. Newsprint is tucked around the sprounting spuds to keep the pesky weeds at bay.
Dropping the web? - perhaps their next step might be the "flyer placed under your windshield while you are shopping at the mall" model.
I for one would love to see them get off the web. I miss holding the paper in my hands. Not having my eyes go blurry after 1/2 hour online.......I know, I know this makes me sound old but hey I'm only .... well lets just say I for one would love to ......................
MSM is bruised, battered, bloodied.
but I will not cry, shed any tears, for rupert murdoch. and he's probably one of the nicer moguls.
read a little clay shirky. there is no more time for brainstorming. the last 10years was a time for brainstorming. now is a time for death and transformation from the ashes.
the future is smaller operations, few ppl. to paraphrase godwin, capitalism sees "monopoly profits" as damage and routes around it. its also called the "invisible hand" and sometimes, occasionally it smacks monster corporations down. its a wondrous thing to behold.
as I write on my blog, two models for the future-- arianna huffington and nick denton.
One of my former co-workers left our Business Publication to head up the marketing/sales for the on-line site of our local flagship newspaper. She has since lost her job along with everyone in her Department.

Print media (by my research as I work in the field) is down in advertising around 25-30% over the past year. We are blessed to be a bit below that number as we have a firm niche. Newspapers to me are robbing Peter to pay Paul with online sites that accompany their news print.

If they rid themselves of this extra expense all the viewers will stick to the print and forget the online version which is never quite as good. I think that many newspapers have shot themselves in the foot with these extravagant online sister sites.

Great post.
Rated
Small communities still want their newspapers printed out and delivered to them. That need for hard copy probably won't go away at least for another generation and may never go away in out-of-the-way places. vsn is right in that Gannettoids and the other geniuses in MSM should have figured this out a long time ago, but we still may have a chance if saner heads (read: not totally consumed with profit) prevail.
Ecellent and incitiful post
“Downplaying the Web, or dropping it altogether and going back to print only, looks not just smart for the struggling newspaper industry, but potentially lifesaving,” Farhi writes.

Ah, the old "if we pretend it's not happening, it's not happening" aka Cowardly Lion strategy.

I don't know the solution is, but that's certainly not it. That bird has flown. It seems something along the lines of broadcast TV, in which you force-interrupt with ads, is going to be the answer. That already happens on some sites, but it may have to happen more. And readers can't change channels in the middle of an articles like they channel surf during TV ads.

I've also wondered what it would be like if we were subtly charged for all online use, in very small increments -- sort of an inversion of how websites are paid for readers viewing or clicking on ads -- and billed once a month in a similar way as we are for phone calls. If it's done in small enough amounts, would people care? I think I'd be less resistant to paying that way than, say, paying $X per month to read a particular paper or magazine. I'd only be paying for what I actually consumed. But it would have to be transparent (behind the scenes) and cheap.
@ Scot
Please read todays artical in the NYT .. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/books/review/Evans-t.html?_r=1
I have a question.

Must we make money on everything? Why can't we be like all other nations and leave somethings free?

Sincerely,

Rated.
Nothing like reading a rational post on this topic. Thanks, Scott.
I like the idea of "complementary journalism" mentioned in your next to the last paragraph. In a struggling economy, our hunger for information is still never sated. There are no doubt many progressive directions we could take this.