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!


Salon.com
Comments
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?
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.
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
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.
Please read todays artical in the NYT .. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/books/review/Evans-t.html?_r=1
Must we make money on everything? Why can't we be like all other nations and leave somethings free?
Sincerely,
Rated.