Some of the newspapers think they can survive by paying for the generation of content which they then give away for free and monetise with advertising. I don't, nor does the CEO of one of the biggest advertising agencies. He suggested this week that the newspaper groups could revive reading by giving away 100 million iPads. (Agencies are always strong on how other people should spend their money.) I still think it's not too late for the media owners to come to their senses and stop giving all their content away for free. The really galling thing about the likes of the Huffington Post stealing their lunch is the fact that those same content aggregators rely on the traditional news gatherers skills to provide the reporting on which their clouds of speculation and comment depend. What are they going to link to when they've all gone bust?
"World-class thinking about music, business, publishing and the general world of media" - Campaign
▼
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Something doesn't add up in digital news
The Huffington Post is starting a British site this summer, which means there will be even more entertainment, media and current affairs in the British media market. It's customary for the newspapers and sites that are already in the British market to puff out their chests and suggest it won't affect them because what they do is different. This could be a mistake. Nobody is ever displaced by somebody coming along and doing what they already do. In fact they're never actually displaced. Instead they find their oxygen - whether that's in the shape of ad revenue, circulation revenue, viewing hours, leisure pounds or brain space – cut off by somebody coming along and doing something which is just sufficiently like what they're doing but for less money or no money at all to cause problems. In the case of the Huffington Post they have a huge advantage over the newspaper groups because the majority of their material is contributed free.
Some of the newspapers think they can survive by paying for the generation of content which they then give away for free and monetise with advertising. I don't, nor does the CEO of one of the biggest advertising agencies. He suggested this week that the newspaper groups could revive reading by giving away 100 million iPads. (Agencies are always strong on how other people should spend their money.) I still think it's not too late for the media owners to come to their senses and stop giving all their content away for free. The really galling thing about the likes of the Huffington Post stealing their lunch is the fact that those same content aggregators rely on the traditional news gatherers skills to provide the reporting on which their clouds of speculation and comment depend. What are they going to link to when they've all gone bust?
Some of the newspapers think they can survive by paying for the generation of content which they then give away for free and monetise with advertising. I don't, nor does the CEO of one of the biggest advertising agencies. He suggested this week that the newspaper groups could revive reading by giving away 100 million iPads. (Agencies are always strong on how other people should spend their money.) I still think it's not too late for the media owners to come to their senses and stop giving all their content away for free. The really galling thing about the likes of the Huffington Post stealing their lunch is the fact that those same content aggregators rely on the traditional news gatherers skills to provide the reporting on which their clouds of speculation and comment depend. What are they going to link to when they've all gone bust?
"...those same content aggregators rely on the traditional news gatherers skills to provide the reporting on which their clouds of speculation and comment depend. What are they going to link to when they've all gone bust?"
ReplyDeleteThank you David. You just put into a few short snappy words, the very argument I've been trying to articulate to my 'everything should be free, man' friends.
"it's not too late for the media owners to come to their senses and stop giving all their content away for free"
ReplyDeleteNever mind the media owners - surely it's the writers who should stop giving their content away for free? That, after all, is the backbone of HuffPo's financial success...
I take the point, but doesn't the vast bulk of "news gathering" consist of merely regurgitating meticulously spun press releases? Daily newspapers are basically aggregators of PR now, and have been for at least the last two decades.
ReplyDeleteAnd what little investigative news-gathering is left has precious little to do with the dailies, anyway - Sy Hersh (AKA the Last of the Mohicans) writes for a monthly mag, while Wikileaks is a beast of the Internet.
To be fair, the likes of Huffington Post provides a forum for quality music journalism like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-pollack/10-bands-shaping-the-post_b_838771.html
and *ahem* this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-pollack/10-bands-that-shook-the-w_1_b_819903.html
(Hat tip to Everett True's Collapse Board for finding these 'excellent' articles:
http://www.collapseboard.com/a-week-in-the-life-of-jeff-pollack )
Sensible points David, although genies and bottles spring to mind. Certainly I've not been remotely tempted to break through The Times paywall.
ReplyDeleteAs Archie points out, I think perhaps you are exaggerating the quality of professional journalism somewhat. 'Regurgitated PR' is bang on, particularly when it comes to science coverage.
Also, maybe you should look closer to home. As it happens, I'm a Word subscriber. But if I fall upon really hard times I could fill my boots with much of the content free, gratis and for nowt via the website and podcast, and this here excellent blog.