NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading a editorial in the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010038online) about that topic. The author made a pretty clear case that providing free news on the internet led to a decline in paid subscriptions. That leads to layoffs and a decline in quality, which leads to further canceled subscriptions.

On the other hand, requiring paid subscriptions to online news led to fewer canceled print subscriptions.

What do y'all think? Is this just the rant of a fellow capitalist that doesn't want to give anything away? Or, is this guy right; will fee-free online news lead to a serious decline in both quality and quantity of professional journalism?

It's all part of a free market society where capitalism is allowed to run rampant. If people are supplying the goods, there is no reason why it must have a price attached to it. After all, free market is about being able to reply to the consumer.

The price can be easily fixed with advertising, which is already rampant on news sites. Most people don't know or have the means to block out flash ads, so they are bombarded with the ads, which is a revenue generator for sites that don't reply on the consumer buck.

If the site is popular enough, a company will be happy to buy advertising space.

And as long as companies are buying ad space, news outlets can provide quality journalism.

It's all about adapting to market demand.

It's all part of a free market society where capitalism is allowed to run rampant. If people are supplying the goods, there is no reason why it must have a price attached to it. After all, free market is about being able to reply to the consumer.

The price can be easily fixed with advertising, which is already rampant on news sites. Most people don't know or have the means to block out flash ads, so they are bombarded with the ads, which is a revenue generator for sites that don't reply on the consumer buck.

If the site is popular enough, a company will be happy to buy advertising space.

And as long as companies are buying ad space, news outlets can provide quality journalism.

It's all about adapting to market demand.
But even advertising revenues appear to be suffering. From the column, I read that between $500 and $900 per year per subscriber is earned from classifieds in printed material, while web-based newspapers only earn between $5 and $10 per year, per unique visitor. That's two orders of magnitude! And worse, if you have a million hits a year, but only 50,000 unique users, you only get revenue from those 50,000, not from their repeat visits.

I think the most telling fact is that the online revenues are much less than needed for sustained journalistic operations...

In fact, online revenues for the publicly traded newspaper companies in 2005 varied from 1.7% at Journal Register Co. to 5.7% at Belo Corp. The only company higher was the Washington Post Co. at 8.4%. Yet newspapers typically spend 12% or more of their revenues on their news and editorial operations.


What you've said is technically correct, but it isn't being borne out in practice. No online site is popular enough to sustain a newsroom.

But even advertising revenues appear to be suffering. From the column, I read that between $500 and $900 per year per subscriber is earned from classifieds in printed material, while web-based newspapers only earn between $5 and $10 per year, per unique visitor. That's two orders of magnitude! And worse, if you have a million hits a year, but only 50,000 unique users, you only get revenue from those 50,000, not from their repeat visits.

I think the most telling fact is that the online revenues are much less than needed for sustained journalistic operations...

What you've said is technically correct, but it isn't being borne out in practice. No online site is popular enough to sustain a newsroom.

When they say "unique" visitor, they are referring to those who don't have a prior tracking cookie on their computer, right? Some people will flush their DNS and cache to speed up the process as well as run programmes to remove tracking cookies, removing the identifier that scripts will place on the computer of the visitor when the http response is sent after the session is initiated.

Now to maintain one, if sites relied more on a PayPal system where they allow users to make "donations" based on what the user feels is right they could also sustain themselves like that.

Revenue could also be generated through the sale of online "space" for personal ads, which could be scaled based on the amount paid just as in a regular newspaper.

http://thestar.livedeal.ca/index.jsp?kbid=2464

There are other means of generating revenue.

The market is evolving and traditional outlets will either die or will be forced to change as the future changes how our news is typically delivered to us.

TV News stations rely on ad revenue that is generated during prime hours. Internet sources will have to find a variation on this that is proven successful. They may even have to seek out big name sponsors if they want to keep pace.

Whilst the way in which news is providing is changing I do not think the quality is necessarily declining.

Think of it like how Wikipedia compares to the Encyclopedia Britannica. As free news begins to take off some sites will gain a reputation for accuracy and bias or lack thereof, perhaps even individuals will gain reputations. eg. Ishmael is the best web journalist for news about what is happening in Israel, but is biased towards Israel, so it helps to also read Ahmed's articles on the same subject. Both are based on the same site, which has many other journalists who write on a huge variety of subjects, and is funded by donations from readers and writers alike.

I was reading a editorial in the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010038online) about that topic. The author made a pretty clear case that providing free news on the internet led to a decline in paid subscriptions. That leads to layoffs and a decline in quality, which leads to further canceled subscriptions.

On the other hand, requiring paid subscriptions to online news led to fewer canceled print subscriptions.

What do y'all think? Is this just the rant of a fellow capitalist that doesn't want to give anything away? Or, is this guy right; will fee-free online news lead to a serious decline in both quality and quantity of professional journalism?

What stopped people from making quality news papers before subscriptions?

I hate this whole lie about how making something free will take away from the competivness, therefore it will disappear forever! Like with music online. People say that pirating will lead to people not wanting to make music anymore. Bullshit. People have made music long before copy right laws, and will do so after wards. Granted, we won't have 50 cent or britney spears type of acts, but hey thats a blessing. Anyways, quite with the act.

I don't think that the press will be killed by the internet news.

When I want news, I look on the internet, browse the press agencies like Reuters, listen to the radio or watch news channels like CNN or Euronews.

When I want opinions and analysis, I buy a daily newspaper.

Simple as that.

Here in Stockholm they are giving away 3 different paper newspapers for free. Metro, Stockholm City and Punkt SE (means "dot se"). The papers are stacked up in every subway station and every other place where a lot of people pass so you can just grab a paper on the way to work. On the most central locations they even have hired people trying to almost push the papers into your hands if you would forget to pick up one of each.

If they can give away news printed on paper and make a profit then they should be able to do the same on the net where the distribution cost is considerably lower.

When I want opinions and analysis, I buy a daily newspaper. When I want opinions and analysis, I log on NSG.. where I can give and receive. :D

.. will fee-free online news lead to a serious decline in both quality and quantity of professional journalism?The quantity is never going to decline..
The quality? it was shit already before the Internet.

What do y'all think? I think printed media needs to adapt.. they have to adjust the price.

If the price is right.. it will make it.

http://thetimesworld.typepad.com/the_times_world/images/journal_metro.jpg

But even advertising revenues appear to be suffering. From the column, I read that between $500 and $900 per year per subscriber is earned from classifieds in printed material, while web-based newspapers only earn between $5 and $10 per year, per unique visitor. That's two orders of magnitude! And worse, if you have a million hits a year, but only 50,000 unique users, you only get revenue from those 50,000, not from their repeat visits.



Web based publications are also far less capital intensive than print publications. There is no need for vast factories and plants filled with expensive, specialized machines maintained by a crowd of low-grade technicians and unskilled laborers. It also removes the expense of the paper inputs and the ink inputs. They may garner less revenue, but they also don't need to spend nearly as much to publish.

That ought to offset a lot of the cost, if not all of it.

I think printed media needs to adapt.. they have to adjust the price.

If the price is right.. it will make it.

http://thetimesworld.typepad.com/the_times_world/images/journal_metro.jpg

The above picture is a free daily newspaper that is distibuted by the STM, or the Societé du Transport de Montréal. They run the buses and subways. It's crap, by the way.

An Accurate Story From the Onion ('http://www.theonion.com/content/news/middle_east_conflict_intensifies')

In fact, it's so accurate, I can read it every day, and it's still accurate.

Fuck the mainstream press. If they go the way of newsreels, no one is going to miss them.

It'll just change to freelancer journalists selling their stories to online news divisions instead of newspaper or TV companies. Most of whom are owned by one or two people anyway.

If the TV and Newspaper groups can't compete in the free marketplace, let them go bankrupt.

dp

The above picture is a free daily newspaper that is distibuted by the STM, or the Societé du Transport de Montréal. They run the buses and subways. It's crap, by the way.http://cache.bostonworks.boston.com/images/hiringhub/prod_targeted_metro.jpg

it is a World wide Newspaper.. It is as crap (or as readable) as any other Newspaper, Gazzette, Journal, etc...

and yes.. it is Free.

Free Internet news must be good for the environment. Think of all the trees we would save if people stopped buying newspapers and read the news on the net instead.

Now to maintain one, if sites relied more on a PayPal system where they allow users to make "donations" based on what the user feels is right they could also sustain themselves like that.
That would create a huge free-rider problem. Some people would simply never pay.

I was reading a editorial in the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010038online) about that topic. The author made a pretty clear case that providing free news on the internet led to a decline in paid subscriptions. That leads to layoffs and a decline in quality, which leads to further canceled subscriptions.

Seriously, would you expect the WSJ (or NYT or WaPo, etc.) to take any other stance? The decline in subscriptions can be traced directly back to a decline in quality of the print newspaper. People want a good local paper, and would generally be willing to pay for it.

The biggest contributor to layoffs and decline in quality in the print media is the insistence of owners and shareholders to increase profits. Large newspaper conglomerates (like Gannett), conservatively bland editorial stances, the dependence on wire stores for content (vs. original journalism), and the profit motive are bigger threats to a free press than news on the Internet.

If anything, the 5th estate is our only hope of keeping honest journalism alive.

Seriously, would you expect the WSJ (or NYT or WaPo, etc.) to take any other stance? The decline in subscriptions can be traced directly back to a decline in quality of the print newspaper. People want a good local paper, and would generally be willing to pay for it.

The biggest contributor to layoffs and decline in quality in the print media is the insistence of owners and shareholders to increase profits. Large newspaper conglomerates (like Gannett), conservatively bland editorial stances, the dependence on wire stores for content (vs. original journalism), and the profit motive are bigger threats to a free press than news on the Internet.

If anything, the 5th estate is our only hope of keeping honest journalism alive.I don't think I have ever heard the internet refered to as the fifth estate before... I'm not so sure if it's an apt description either.

It is developing as such in a number of ways. There have been a number of important stories that would have dropped out of sight in favor of what Britney's up to were it not for sites such as Muckraker, Smoking Gun, Crooks and Liars, Media Matters, et al.

The Internet may be mostly porn and chat rooms, but there's a nascent corner of heavens-to-betsy independent journalism out there.

That would create a huge free-rider problem. Some people would simply never pay.

But it would allow for the system to remain free but it would still generate profit to meet the bottom line because people who enjoyed it would support it.

If anything, the 5th estate is our only hope of keeping honest journalism alive.

Do you mean it should be the fifth branch of the state?

If so I agree with you, as long as there are strict controls to stop other branches trying to employ propaganda on the population.

No. The free press is ruined proportionally to the amount it is beholden to advertisers.

http://cache.bostonworks.boston.com/images/hiringhub/prod_targeted_metro.jpg

it is a World wide Newspaper.. It is as crap (or as readable) as any other Newspaper, Gazzette, Journal, etc...

and yes.. it is Free.

Oh no, they're spreading. I was hoping the infection would stay on the island. But now I know we caught it from somewhere else. And the reason I think they are crap is because the articles are too short to convey the information required to make a critical analysis.

This brings up another point in favour of internet news. I can find several articles from different sources about the same event, and get more information far more quickly and easily than I could by sticking to print media.

But it would allow for the system to remain free but it would still generate profit to meet the bottom line because people who enjoyed it would support it.
Revenue would fall precipitously because the vast majority of people won't pay for free stuff.