"Readers owe nothing to publishers"
By Robert Niles
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/080128niles/
this article is perhaps the best i've read to sum up my feelings regarding the relationship between a newspaper and its readership. actually, it pretty much sums up my feelings toward any industry that isn't willing to get with the program and update their business model to cooperate with modern technology.
here is the truth: gone are the days when people get up in the morning, grab the morning paper, and flip the pages as they sip their coffee. reality is people stumbling wearily into work and wasting the first hour they're there clicking through their email, google news, or RSS feeds. people don't walk up and down the aisles of best buy browsing CDs; they get their music through the click of a mouse button. and people definitely don't write letters anymore; they facebook. we live in a computerized age, and as much as the old guard gripes about it, it's only going to amplify as time goes on.
which is why it seems like punishment when newspapers inundate their online readers with the flash ads and surveys niles mentions, most of which take forever to load and some of which necessitate CIA-level intelligence to figure out how to click out of. often i've thought to myself, "I'M reading YOUR newspaper," (ostensibly the goal they're trying to achieve), "WHY are you pissing me off??"
i think the same thing whenever i hear of record labels suing another 18-year-old kid who downloaded a 50 cent song onto his computer, or the recent decision of the wall street journal to keep the majority of their online content "premium," aka only for people who pay for it. customers are obviously interested in the content, but the industries seem intent on withholding it. what they don't realize is there will always be someone younger, hipper, and more technologically savvy to figure out how to get what he or she wants for free while their older, more staid counterpart sputters about how everything comes at a price.
the wall street journal claims they will revisit their decision in the future, but for now, the vast majority of their content can't be accessed without a newsstand visit or a credit card. even though rupert murdoch himself has stated the increased traffic of a free website would generate enough advertising revenue to more than make up for the loss of subscription income, this new york times article quotes dow jones executives stating a locked website "creates an elite audience of high-income business-oriented readers whom advertisers pay a premium to reach."
such reasoning seems a little suspect for a newspaper whose current projects include a move from the financial district to midtown, the addition of a sports page, and the creation of a glossy magazine insert helmed by an editor whose previous experience includes vogue and tatler.
all efforts to distance the paper from its wall street roots and incorporate a more diverse audience, comprised of people, i presume, who currently think, why read the wall street journal when i can read the new york times for free?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting to me that you don't mention a whole heck of a lot about book publishers in this here post. Anyway, the bottom line of this issue is just that, the bottom line. If businesses want to adjust their models to make way for the digitized consumer they've got to figure out a way to do so that is cost-effective and gives them the same profit margin. This means they'll need to clutter their content with those ads you hate so much and have you pay for their digital content. Plus, I think that in a lot of ways -- or at least a few -- our idea about this is skewed by where we live. For some reason I want to say that newspapers are still an important part of middle and suburban America. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
You inspired me! Now I made a blog. You may or may not be the only reader. Kind of like the LJ days.
It's insanity how much print journalism has changed in the five years since we applied to college and I can't even imagine what it will be like another 5 years down the road. I inevitably have some variation of this discussion every time someone finds out that I majored in journalism but then are shocked when I tell them I'm not looking for a job in that field.
I'm torn because I'm definitely of the "all for free" generation, but at the same time if no one's willing to pay for news AND media conglomerations keep monopolizing the industry like they are now, there will be absolutely zero jobs and all of us from New York to Nebraska are going to get the exact same crappily written news.
in response to steph: i definitely agree with you. the newspaper business (or music or book publishing or whatever) is just that: a business, and i understand they need turn a profit. but i think it's just as important not to alienate their customer and to consider what is actually going to be effective in terms of advertising. i'm no marketing major, but it's difficult for me to see how an advertisement that pesters the target audience will be a successful one. my point of view is in line with the article that advertising should be present, but in a way that appeals to the consumer and doesn't overshadow what's really important: the content.
your second point is also right. i am biased because i'm young, live in an urban area, and stay in touch with the world mostly through technology. this isn't nearly as true for someone like, say, my dad. but that generation is getting older and as we become adults, i think it's inevitable that technology will be replacing the more traditional methods, whether you live in new york city or the middle of nowhere iowa. we're at a crux where if these companies don't at least start thinking about catering to us, their business will die off as our parents do.
Post a Comment