If you were hoping that people would be willing to pay for online news, thus saving the journalism industry from certain extinction, you might as well kill yourself right now:
NEW YORK — Getting people to pay for news online at this point would be “like trying to force butterflies back into their cocoons,” a new consumer survey suggests.
That was one of several bleak headlines in the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s annual assessment of the state of the news industry, released Sunday.
About 35 percent of online news consumers said they have a favorite site that they check each day. The others are essentially free agents, the project said. Even among those who have their favorites, only 19 percent said they would be willing to pay for news online – including those who already do.
There’s little brand loyalty: 82 percent of people with preferred news sites said they’d look elsewhere if their favorites start demanding payment.
Oh yeah, guess who called this one? Just guess. I’m starting to think I should ditch my day job and become a full-time futurist.
“If we move to some pay system, that shift is going to have to surmount significant consumer resistance,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the project, part of the Pew Research Center.
Don’t tell Agnostic about this, because he’s liable to start crying. Or more likely, he’ll find some way to spin this story and claim it doesn’t invalidate his asinine, cockamamie theory.
Despite a lot of choices, traffic on news sites tends to be concentrated on the biggest – Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, AOL and The New York Times.
“There was this view that we’re retreating into our own world of niche sites and that’s not true,” Rosenstiel said.
That offers a glimmer of hope for establishing a pay system if operators of the biggest sites could somehow agree on how to do it, he said. The survey found that if forced to make a choice, consumers prefer some kind of subscription service to a pay-as-you-go plan.
So in order to save their sorry rear-ends, all the major news providers will have to come to some sort of agreement, which will bestow a competitive advantage on any group who either doesn’t come on board or stabs their co-conspirators in the back. Sounds like a recipe for success to me!
The Wall Street Journal requires readers to pay for content and The New York Times recently announced plans to charge for full access to its Web site. Starting next year under a metered system, Times readers will be allowed to click on a certain number of stories for free each month, with fees kicking in for readers who exceed that level.
I explained why the WSJ can get away with this months ago. As for the NYT, we now know which major newspaper will be the first to collapse. It couldn’t have happened to a greater, more respected institution.
In addition to attempts to reach back and charge readers for content they have become accustomed to getting for free, news executives hope that advances in technology and changes in consumer habits will provide future revenue opportunities.
Given that it was technology that was responsible for making upwind of ninety percent of journalists redundant, I really doubt it.
The Associated Press last month announced a new business unit, AP Gateway, designed to develop and promote products that will help the cooperative, newspapers and broadcasters create revenue-producing products. The AP, for instance, will charge for an application it is developing for use on the iPad, Apple’s tablet computer.
While consumers may seem reluctant to pay for news, they’re more likely to pay for the functionality of news products on various devices, including smart phones, said Jane Seagrave, senior vice president and chief revenue officer at The Associated Press.
“I’m more hopeful now than I ever have been,” Seagrave said. “There seems to be a broad understanding that there is a value to professional journalism that is at risk right now.”
Hope is the brain’s last desperate delusion of normality when the abyss is approaching. I’m sure the medieval scribes who were put out of work by the Gutenberg printing press were full of hope too.
Beyond the online activity, the study found that cable news, led by Fox News Channel, seemed to be the only sector of the news industry thriving.
Newspaper advertising revenue fell 26 percent in 2009 compared to the year before, the study said. Local TV and radio ad revenue were both off 22 percent. Network television ad revenue was down 8 percent.
Network news division resources are down more than half since the late 1980s, and that doesn’t count ABC News’ recent announcement that it could lose as much as a quarter of its staff due to cutbacks.
Newspaper spending on reporting and editing has fallen roughly 30 percent over the past decade, probably more at many big-city dailies, Rosenstiel said.
The snake is eating its own tail. I look forward to watching it choke and starve.
Hat tip: the eXiled.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
The Economist was writing about this a few issues back. Their conclusion was that people will pay for articles if the articles are very specialized, or the author a true expert. So The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and the like will do well. Everyone else is concentrating on AP-clone articles, anyway. I do pay for the Washington Times because they have articles that I think are worth paying for, especially as I live in the DC area. I also pay for my local newspaper because they have local info that I can’t get anywhere else.
The New York Times doesn’t, though. And I think broad-spectrum national news is going to be taken over completely by AP and Reuters.
A few years ago I was living in Kansas City, MO. A newspaper salesman called. I told him that I get my news from the internet for the most part, but I won’t buy the rag he was selling because the editorialists never endorsed gun rights, always endorsed another tax increase regardless of costs whether local, state, or federal.
What happens when more newspapers go out of business? The time is probably coming before long when there will be no local news coverage in smaller cities.
That’s right. And you can get away with very low quality as long as you have a monopoly.
That model worked good in Journalism for something like 100 years, but isn’t working anymore.
Some guy with no experience can top a reporter with no talent and a 1001 rules to follow. So long as you can’t lock down distribution channels.
i wonder how long liberals will point to the growing majority of people who harbor conservative views and still claim that those people are in the wrong, close minded, etc.
A possible subject for a future post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/winston-bennett-sex-addic_n_500970.html
Winston Bennett played in the NBA during the late 1980s and early 90s, and while he may have been known for his on-court ability, he harbored an off-court passion that nearly consumed him.
In an interview with ESPN’s “Outside the Lines,” Bennett details his sex addiction, explaining that he slept with 90 women per month before he got married — and approximately half that total after his wedding.
He says he would meet the women seemingly anywhere: “Malls, restaurants — let’s not forget — prostitutes, massage parlors.” His obsession with sex occupied huge swaths of time. “I spent a great deal of time either having sex, cruising for sex, calling for sex, looking for sex,” Bennett told ESPN. He “very seldom” used protection.
I agree with this post, I read newspapers online daily but would never dream of subscribing to them. Are newspapers doomed and if so are new forms of media going to take their place? Excluding cable tv, will it be possible to make any money in the media industry going forward? What is the future likely to hold? Anyone know?
All I need is the basic nuts and bolts of a story, which you can get anywhere for free as of now. The entertaining part is the analysis and breakdown of those stories from my favorite bloggers. You get what people are really thinking without the PC bullshit filter. The internet saved me, I would have gone insane if I had to read PC liberal stuff passing for news.
Is the NYT really going to just collapse and disappear? Doesn’t seem possible.
A good article at time.com, finally.
–
The Twilight of the Elites
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971117,00.html
Hmm I just read that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim loaned the NYT $250 million and may be interesting in buying the company. Say hello to your Hispanic overlords.
“I’m sure the medieval scribes who were put out of work by the Gutenberg printing press were full of hope too.” Haha, awesome. If you do decide to quit your job and become a full-time futurist, I’ll be behind you 100% :)
And when the city council in your own home town votes on something that will cost you big bucks and you weren’t at the meeting because you were checking out some babe’s vajazzled whatever, how do you expect to know about it?
It’s not going to be from Reuter’s, Fox, the NYT or the AP or any other Internet site — it’s going to be from some poor schmo who’s willing to work for $20,000 a year to cover the crappiest beats so people can be informed. Unless he gets fired because no one’s buying the local rag. Then what?
Sure some blogger can do it … but he or she might want to get paid eventually. Think about it.
Given the state of journalism today, you wouldn’t know about it now. Even the local papers are more likely to report of vajazzling chicks and high school sports than whatever is happening with the city council. It can’t get worse, and it can only get better.
Kat Wilder:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I live in Albany, NY. The council does that crap all the time and the local rag, the Times Union, already DOESN’T cover it. If it doesn’t bleed or fuck whores on the side, it didn’t happen as far they care. I have to read a blog in order to know what’s going on:
http://albanycitizenone.blogspot.com/
Kat, Pro Male is right. So too is Ferdinand. Take for example Mayor Tony in LA screwing the Univision reporter (and lots of hot Korean developer babes). Including all sorts of corrupt, sweetheart deals his bimbos got from developer friends, not limited to below market value condo sales. Who covered that?
The LAT, LA Daily News, Pilot, etc. all REFUSED TO COVER IT despite it being common knowledge. Local blogger Luke Ford got the story out. Same with John Edwards and Rielle Hunter — the LAT had the story and KILLED IT so Mickey Kaus covered it, along with the National Enquirer. Heck Drudge got his start when a Time reporter gave him the low-down on the spiked Monica Lewinsky story.
A local blogger, armed with a cheap video and still camera, can cover the local area BETTER (because he’s not blinded by PC dogma) and cheaper and FASTER than the local paper, and if he does not give news, a competitor WILL.
LA for example has Mayor Sam’s Sister City, LukeFord.net, and LA Observed to cover your local news. Meanwhile the OC Register down here is on a death spiral, killed by PC and La Raza pumping, as the Hoiles family sold out a decade ago. The LAT is probably in the same boat, way over-leveraged as well.
Agnostic is dreaming — along with James Murdoch who thinks he can get pay for papers beyond the WSJ. I walk around my neighborhood early in the AM. It used to be that this place got newspapers in every driveway. Now it’s about every sixth driveway. Even the WSJ is going to be pressed to maintain pricing as far too many free-ad supported folks give news on the internet.
I subscribe to the FT (the WSJ raised their rates, so I’ll be back after a year as a “new” subscriber). I like having a newspaper in places you can’t read a laptop — the doctor’s office, etc. It is not worth paying full price though, and a non-business newspaper is just crap.
Local news is already mostly blogging, the Seattle Post Intelligencer went online only, and the Rocky Mountain News went out of business. Same thing is happening to magazines.
There is probably, if done right, room for one, mainstream, middle of the road, national newspaper, but requires non-PC politics execution. I doubt anyone in the newspaper industry can stay away from PC to do it. Currently Murdoch and son both think that the Ipad or other stuff like that will “save” newspapers and magazines. Good luck storming the Castle!
The problem with newspapers is they went away from mass coverage and sensibility while retaining a mass structure. The LAT could make a nice tidy profit — if they had the people from 1981 running them. Heck their circulation peaked and immediately hit a decline in 1989. Long before the internet.
A local blogger, armed with a cheap video and still camera, can cover the local area BETTER (because he’s not blinded by PC dogma) and cheaper and FASTER than the local paper, and if he does not give news, a competitor WILL.
Don’t doubt that. But, as I said, who will pay him 9or her)? And, at a fair price? All you have to do is look at what the online content mills (Demand Studios, etc.) are paying — $15 an article. Given how long it takes to research a story, call contacts, then write it …. well, do the math.
Might as well get a job at Starbucks; at least you’ll get health benefits, paid vacation/sick days and that free iTunes download card on Tuesdays … Just sayin’
Not only with The Great Snake starve, the snakelets will as well.
When everybody who can write, does – it’s no longer special.
Certainly not special enough to pay for.
Everyone’s a Hemingway
So no one is
Then good luck uncovering a Watergate, or a Pentagon Papers, or ….
Now, I’ll just go back to writing about sex, which I like to do whether I get paid or not … ;-)
Kat:
What’s a “fair price”? Our era of good wages for all is a historical aberration and is coming to a close. Unless you work for the government, chances are you’re getting paid shit – and the guvmint employees are going to get theirs soon enough.
The fact that the two scandals you mentioned both occurred nearly forty years ago proves my point. When was the last time a newspaper or any mainstream media outlet uncovered something like that? Or even tried?
Well, I like to live in the past. I was younger then!
“Now, I’ll just go back to writing about sex, which I like to do whether I get paid or not … ;-)”
I think you just proved Whiskey’s point. Local bloggers are going to post their content because they like blogging, not because they see it as a job.
Oh for goodness (or not) sake, Breeze, you’ve sucked me (no pun intended) back into this debate, er, conversation.
I do, indeed, hope to make some $$ on my blog one day, but if I don’t, that’s OK: it’s not my job. it’s something I like to do. I (thankfully) still have a job, with paid sick days and vacation days and etc. That’s what allowed me to pay for my own domain name, Web site, pictures, blah, blah, blah.
If I had to rely on my blog? Uh, not quite; not with a kid who hopes to go to college one day (very soon) and a dog that likes to eat and a woman (that would be me) who wants to keep the boy and dog fed, housed, clothed (not the dog: ew!) and happy, not to mention keeping myself happy (do you think shoes grow on trees?)
Which gets us back to the real issue — someone or several someones will need to cover all the local government things, not to mention the county, state, national and international things. In order to do that well, the someone(s) will (eventually) need to be compensated because there are silly things like food, DSL, cable (or satellite) and electricity to deal with. Where will that $$$ come from? You? A nonprofit? Advertisers? All of the above?
Sadly, it does all come down to money, at some point, same like marriages (except we don’t realize it until we’re getting divorced; the judge couldn’t care less about love; all he/she wants to know is who’ll get the 1996 Acura and who’ll pay for the kids’ braces). Because we like to eat … or traipse around in nice stilettos.
I would love to see someone, anyone, bloggers or not, take that on and do it well. But most of us are not nonprofits. Are you?
{ 3 trackbacks }