This week’s cover of Time magazine features an article on how to save the daily newspaper from becoming extinct. While it’s noted that newspapers have more readers than ever, the bottom line is that fewer of these readers are paying because the same thing is online for free. The three revenue sources for a newspaper are newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising. Because most publishers have relied on advertising, the freefall of ad revenues in 2008, both in print and online, have made for a shaky foundation, resulting in many severe cuts.
Relying on advertisers exclusively has another downside because, ideally, the editorial content of a publication should be geared to its readers, not its advertisers. How many people have flipped through articles in any magazine, only to find that the content features the products of several advertisers? When articles fail to be of interest to consumers, readership is bound to fall.
And going back to Thomas Paine and the time of the American Revolution, the free press has been essential to any free democratic society. Journalists and the content they produce in interaction with their readers are really the intelligence of a society, as well as THE institution of public discourse.
But back to the article, this is happening because news organizations are giving away their news online. In the spirit that all things on the Web should be free to readers, publications like Time initially watched its online ad revenues increase for getting the information to more people, but at the same time, abandoned being paid for content. When ad revenue hit bottom last year, cuts had to be made.
Well, what’s wrong with going back to getting paid for content? In a real twist of irony, I subscribe to the print version of Time, but as I looked online for a hyperlink to this article, there it was, almost in its entirety, laid out online for absolutely free. So, why should I buy this magazine?
The writer suggests that a system of micropayments would allow readers to pick and choose which online news to pay for rather than forcing people to subscribe.
I love freebies, but I love this profession more, and I hate to see it go down in flames, and along with it, jobs for budding writers, photographers and graphic designers. If the dailies go, yes, there will still be online jobs, but markedly fewer. If the print versions stick around, combined with online, more college graduates in the field will be able to seek jobs in a FUN profession (one of the few left, in my opinion). They may have to work harder and write high quality pieces, but there will be jobs.
Some argue that readers will balk at payment for what was once free, and some will say that remaining free sites will attract more readers. I don’t think so; as long as the fees are small enough, I would expect that there will still be enough researchers and just fans of good journalism to pay for the distinguished sites.
This isn’t just about keeping the print versions of newspapers and magazines; in my opinion, this is about the survival of a great profession.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I heard on the news just today that, most businesses were loosing profits because of advertising. Well, I can see it happening in the newspaper industries. They say that it cost less to have all the information you need on the web. What's wrong with paying for the news. Before, internet it was newspapers. I agree with you one 100 hundred percent Wendy, if they work harder and write better pieces there will be jobs. And you are right it is about the survival of the profession. There are many who would prefer to read the newspaper rather than go on the internet to get the news. Great peice.
ReplyDeleteEven though technology makes our lives easier, technology also can have a negative impact on us. This would be the prime example of that. There are still a lot of people that enjoys reading the newspaper but the younger generation is looking on the web to get their news. Even though the information that the newspaper companies put on the web has been free, I agree with the writer when he/she said that there should be a system of mircropayments which will allow the person to pick which news they want to view instead of forcing people to subscribe.
ReplyDeleteBoth of you guys make very good points. There was newspapers before the time of computers. However, I have to disagree with you both on this one. The internet allows us to view news for free. So instead of paying for a subscription to a newspaper that sometimes doesn't come or is too wet to read, why not read the same news for free? I actually have a subscription to the Times Union but I actually like to read different papers online to see what they are talking about. Sometimes, interesting stories can be found on the computer in a different newspaper or article. Example of what I mean: the last two blogs before this one I posted for this week, I got off the Kansas City Star. They had some pretty good stories on there that attracted my attention. Great post.
ReplyDeleteEven though I am a huge internet person...I love reading the newspaper sunday morning with my coffee on my porch. It is a part of my life and always will be. I would be devastated if twenty years from now there is no actual newspaper to pick up. Whats scary is that the interent literally has everything you need. Every piece of information you are looking for is rught there on teh web. So, many people just don't even think about print papers anymore.
ReplyDeleteMostly, i agree. This is a great profession and the ones who are passionate about it should definitely contribute to keep it running for many years to come. But what about the people who barely make enough money to get by in life, let alone pay for luxuries even if they are passionate about it. I love this industry but lets be real. Most of us in college barely make enough to pay for tuition, books, food and other necessities. I don't think we should be expected to pay for things required for school such as research. If we are required to find stories for our education, i don't beleive we should have to pay every time we have a story due. No matter how cheap the papers make it, i would be more in the poor house than i currently am in. If you are reading articles for personal knowledge or pleasure than yes i beleive you should support the printed press. Obviously i might be a little biased because i am a poor, college student. Great article Wendy!
ReplyDeletethe fact that newspapers are fading is not abnormal. the creative-ness and adaptations that the computer the digital media produces is bnreath taking and advaning. the newspaper is always going to be the same. the only thing that will ever change int he newspaper is the look and the advertisements. the computer/ the internet will keep advancing for years to come, and keep grabbing the interests of its buyers.
ReplyDeleteI read newspapers and view photographs online, but they don't hold a candle to something tangible.
ReplyDeleteThere is just something magical about the layout of a newspaper, magazine, or article. You can take it anywhere.
Granted people can read stuff online and take their lap tops anywhere, it's somehow just not the same.
The strain a computer screen causes your eyes starts to take a toll.