What if newspapers delayed free stories?
Cory Bergman November 13th, 2006
Peter Scheer, who’s executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, has this proposal to generate revenue from subscriptions for online news content:
“Newspapers and wire services need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period — say, 24 hours — after it is made available to paying customers.”
Then people would feel compelled to pay for the up-to-date content, and it would “quickly establish the true value of that information.” Interesting idea, but it will never work, of course. How about this instead: stop trying to copy newspapers to the web and start developing new information-related, niche businesses online.
15 Comments Add your own
1. Steve Safran | November 13th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
WOW that’s a bad idea. Seriously, that’s a prank right? “Hello, toothpaste? We were wondering if you might be kind enough to get back in the tube.”
Embargo the news? How utterly anti-journalism.
2. Don | November 13th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I suggest every newspaper in America implement this today.
3. G Man | November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
And the one that doesn’t wins.
4. Tim | November 13th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Why don’t they get it?? You’re a NEWS organizaton, not a PAPER origanization. “It’s just that simple” to quote Ross Perot.
If you do news we can believe, news we can trust is factual, news that matters to us, and news on time, you can get us to view the web site and you can move your ad sales over there.
5. Ed | November 13th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
This is a very interesting idea actually.
It’s clearly has nothing to do with “paper” Tim, it has to do wtih not being able to command ad revenue online that is comparable to traditional media. This is true with TV stations as well.
So, do you think your news content has the value based on your Broadcast advertising rates? Or, based on your online advertising rates?
People have been condtioned, by years of getting this stuff free, to believe it has little no no value.
One upshot of this theoretical exercise is to attempt to establish a value for the content, both literally, in terms of advertising rates, and conceptually, in terms of how people value the content that they have taken for granted for so long.
And, if your so altruistic as to believe that value is anti-journalism, then I’m waiting for your commercial-free local news broadcasts and ad-free websites.
6. Chris | November 13th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
How ironic - a “free speech” lawyer arguing for paid content in the midst of the most competitive media space ever. (I’m not confusing the different definitions of “free” here; I’m just astounded that he’s advocating a paid wall separating information “haves” and “have-nots.” Sure, it’s a business’ right to do that, but you’d expect something different from the free-speech crowd… )
I wonder why he didn’t advise the same strategy for local TV stations along with newspapers. (It’s a bad idea for either…)
7. Safran | November 13th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Ed: Value is not anti-journalism. Withholding news is. News organizations need revenue to survive. They simply cannot try to hold on to the old model of generating revenue on their old terms.
And of course newspapers can’t command the revenue they used to. There’s more competition. They’re not the only game in town anymore. Sorry. They *can* be successful journalistic endeavors. It’s just that they’re carrying so much overhead right now that they can’t meet up with their own expenses.
That’s hardly the fault of the web.
8. Ed | November 13th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Did you guys even read the article?
Firstly, he’s advocating online only, so it’s not about depriving poor people of any news.
Secondly, he’s advocating a temporary embargo.
The purpose of this is to remind people (both consumers and advertisers) of the value of the information they’re consuming.
This applies just as much to tv stations as it does to newspapers. You’re both doomed. I know exactly how little TV stations make on the web as well.
I’m going to file this one under “check back later”, as I’m convinced some TV consultant will be proposing this exact thing within a year as your broadcast revenues plummit even more rapidly then projected.
9. Emery | November 13th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I can imagine newspapers will agree to that until they get scooped by someone who does NOT agree to the embargo. It’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard lately..
Newspaper are just like any other enterprise. They have to figure out ways to make money. If they can’t, they will die. Then the wire services will lose valuable sources of news and information.
And that move will move right up the line until the AP news report begins to lose value and consumers will see that real quick.
UPI began to lose value in the 1990s when it cut bureaus to stem the money loss. The news report suffered and it is but a shadow of itself today. Unipressers used to “write bright tonight.” They would have never had a chance if they wrote and held the story for 24 hours for one segment of their business.
When news starts eliminating one segment or another, it will lose value.
10. Ed | November 13th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Meh. It has the potential to be an interesting thought experiment, but it was taken a bit too literally.
11. thewashingtonchannel | November 13th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
media companies brought this on themselves. who ever said they need put their content online for free? the wall street urinal charges for their stuff.
did big media, in a futile attempt to thwart a business model being born on the net, decide on charging so little for ad space so as to keep any upstarts from making a go of it?
now that has failed. so this idea comes as no great surprise.
hey, it’ll be just like today’s newspaper too… all yesterday’s news.
12. flotsam | November 13th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Embargo=self censorship. Helluva’n idea.
And Tim has it right above, we’re in the information business and getting the information out is the job.
If all these papers had vigorous web presences, this wouldn’t be an issue because they would be the ‘net publisher of first record.
13. Tim | November 13th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
I don’t certainly don’t think the information has no value. I do think, however, that the only proven revenue model for online information is the ad-supported one. Trying to blockade information behind a paywall rarely works, because the information is usually available from many sources, some of which are free. As a news example, and perhaps an extreme one, no one has to pay for world news, because the public in the United Kingdom already pays for the BBC: and therefore the BBC offers their information back to their public for free - and we benefit as well.
14. G Man | November 14th, 2006 at 5:42 am
And the really big problem for newspapers is Monster.com, Hotjobs, eBay and Craig’s list. That’s where their revenue really went - the loss of classified ads. They print the news so people will see the ads. Same as the old TV truism - programming is just the space between commercials.
15. zyggy | November 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
What a GREAT idea. I never like newspapers anyway, all that icky ink and those silly 5pt classifieds that I can’t see. Leave the news to the real reporters -the blogosphere.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed