Who will pay for news?

Great, so we all agree artists don't make significant money off iTunes.

So can we now officially ixnay the "iTunes Model" argument? As in the iTunes Model will save journalism?

Because for that to work, journalists would have to start going on tour, selling out stadiums and shit.

 

The iTunes method didn't make them any less money than the physical album sales method. And they still make money from it. I don't think iTunes is analagous to online news, but not for those reasons.

 

Bottom line: An iTunes approach will not cover the overhead.

 

Do you mean people paying per story? Then no, it won't. If you mean people paying in general, I'm not sure. If it can be done, my opinion is the proliferation of apps is the most likely route. Even then, I'm not completely convinced.

Ultimately it's an advertising question. Sell the ads, you're in. Don't sell the ads, then you'd better hope a lot of people are willing to pay out, because otherwise you've got trouble with starts with a t which rhymes with p which stands for paywall.

 

Why do newspapers charge for the print edition now?

It's certainly not for content. It's for delivery.

The cost of delivering a physical paper > posting content online.

Readers subscriptions support delivery. Advertisers support content. Going to pay walls online only changes that model.

 

Subscriber revenue no longer ONLY pays for delivery. It's a growing source of basic income for many newspapers as they raise prices to their hardiest customers. Discounts are harder to find, etc.

Many foreign papers are used to less advertising support and rely on higher prices to cover their bills. It seems likely to me that the pattern will hold here as well.

 

I mean all of it.. per story, paywall, advertising, apps. The only way people will "pay" is if it's already part of their monthly bill.

Regarding apps... in 10 years, we'll be saying, "Remember when apps were all the rage? And people were actually paying for apps?" Somebody will come along with an EZ App-Creator, and consumers will make their own "apps" to shortcut and organize the internet.

I've made no secret I think the ONLY solution is the Cable TV model.

Internet providers are making a fortune by disseminating journalists' content. At some point, someone will be smart enough to go after the middle man for a cut of his outrageous profits. It's already being tested and implemented.

 

Internet providers are making a fortune by providing the Internet. Would you charge the transit system for having a bus stop near your restaurant? Because that's what you're advocating.

 

I've wondered why newspapers and other media outlets don't go after ISPs. The cable model seems like the best way for newspapers to make money off the Internet.

 

Oh good, a taker. Doesn't everybody love it when I do this one?

And a long long time ago, cable providers were providing cable TV.

Then some channels like CNN said you can't keep making 100% profit off our content. Each subscriber will now pay a dime for CNN.

Today ESPN charges over $3 per subscriber.

Wright Thompson's trips to India don't pay for themselves.

[/sorry, bad joke. too early.]

 

Cable companies actually have to carry channels. They don't just open up shop and give you access to every TV station around. It's a different technology and a false equivalency.

Also, cable companies sell you on access to specific channels, including CNN and ESPN. When was the last time an ISP used access to a newspaper's website as a selling point? Or any website, for that matter?

I keep asking this question when this topic comes up and nobody ever answers, but hey, I love a challenge: What's to keep literally every website in the world from going after ISPs for the cardinal sin of providing access to their sites? Google, YouTube, Wikipedia, ESPN, SJ, all of them? If they're successful, how do we not end up with a markedly more expensive, significantly compromised Internet experience? If only newspapers and newsgathering sites should do this, how do you justify the other sites not following suit?

Complaining that people are given access to your website, that you put on an open Internet of your own volition, is akin to building a house and complaining that people can see it when they drive in front of it.

 

That's an easy one. The marketplace.

Johnnie Dickwad cannot command a penny for access to his blog. Sorry, Johnnie. Just like HSN3 cannot command money for its channel. In fact, HSN3 might be paying cable operators to put it on. If the market dictates that a channel picks up steam, it becomes break even-- nobody pays anybody. If there becomes a real demand, the channel can charge a fee. The fee is usually absorbed by the overall monthly bill.

Here's the way I envisioned it, but the way it's happening is actually somewhat different. I envisioned that the big news orgs like CNN, NY Times, ABC News, etc. would, at about the same time, start asking for a fee. How would you feel if you turned on your computer one day and couldn't access any major news website? But it would never actually come to that because the ISPs would just fork over the fees. We're talking small fees at first, like a penny a month.

The way this business model is actually being implemented is really just cost shifting among large companies who already do business with one another.

Example: A content provider in the TV world has recently developed a new website and has asked ISPs to pay a very small fee for internet customers to access this new website. And the most amazing thing happened. A lot of the cable providers are also internet providers. So they just paid the fee.