Almost every day, I find another newspaper publishing another editorial or letter claiming that everything’s OK with papers or that society is not OK without them.
Now The Financial Times offers an editorial on the future of newspapers that starts off sensibly and unemotionally. But then it ends up, as I read it, nya-nyaing other papers essentially saying that we can charge and if you were any good you could, too.
….One potential suitor has decided against entering the print fray – Google, whose Google News aggregation service is sometimes unfairly blamed for causing papers’ problems. Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, told the FT that Google will help papers to adapt to the internet rather than buy them.The degree to which the travails of papers are a threat to an informed democracy can be exaggerated, particularly by journalists. The internet has made print less profitable but has also made new forms of information-gathering and commentary possible. Bloggers get a bad press but low-cost publishing helps new sources to emerge.
The profitability of papers in the late 20th century, when they had a monopoly of classified advertising, was an anomaly. Before that, newspaper barons owned them more to wield power than nurture democracy, while the 18th-century press was as partisan and rambunctious as any bunch of bloggers.
That’s great: sensible talk at last from a newspaper about the newspaper business. You’d expect that from a financial paper. But then things shift as the FT acknowledges that “Business papers, including the FT, have had more success in charging online readers than general-interest publications. … Perhaps some of the reporting done up to now by for-profit papers will in future be funded by foundations or trusts. But the industry should not lose faith in the free market.”
Still, bravo. But then the kicker: “When people really want or need something, they will pay for it, one way or another. If today’s publishers cannot convince their readers to do so, they will be overtaken by others that can.”
Sigh. You’d think that the FT of all papers would see that there are many models for supporting journalism, not just payment from readers or foundations. The FT itself also makes money from advertising, of course, and from merchandise sales and from holding events. Rather than sticking a twig in the eye of papers that aren’t as lucky as the FT to be able to charge, it would have been more helpful if it had called for more innovation in more business and revenue models.
The FT isn’t accurately reporting the state of the British economy where the financial services business was prominent
“they will be overtaken by others that can.” is the operative comment
[...] twig in the eye for [...]
newspapers are dead. I just finished reading an interview series with top dogs on the future of journalism, and its heart wrenching to hear WHY its falling apart, and what awaits the journalism industry. Highly recommended (In fact I think they published an online book using the interviews are as well, (that are available).
http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,200076/id,8/view,category/#catid69
@paul Agreed. The FT is so far off the mark during current economic conditions it’s loss of authority is inevitable.
[...] systems count on some form of altruism which is not widespread. MC Siegler, bucking the trend of those who believe everything should be free, has dipped his toe in the micropayments water a couple of times lately. He seems to be hedging [...]
newspapers have forgotten the business they are in. they are not simply news and they are not paper. they are information providers who now have several revenue opportunities compared to what they had in the past. no other media organization has the resources, personnel or history as newspapers. they have a wealth of information in their archives and have no understanding on how to exploit them. they are their own worst enemy
Jeff – I’m relatively new to your blog but I’m struck by your advocacy for publications “giving away” their content which is a pretty flawed model and rife with conflicts of interest.
Would you walk into a bookstore and choose a “free book” over yours if it were packed with ads and referrals to outfits kicking back money to the author?
It’s easy to advocate “giving away” “content” when you’re wealthy.
> Jeff – I’m relatively new to your blog but I’m struck by your advocacy for publications “giving away” their content which is a pretty flawed model and rife with conflicts of interest.
That’s not what Jeff advocates.
Instead, he points out that newspapers can’t expect to make much money selling other people’s content that is readily available elsewhere.
Jeff actually advocates charging whatever the market will bear, by any means that works. The phrases are “will bear” and “that works” are important. These things are important to Jarvis because he really wants journalists to make money.
Newspaper folk dislike Jarvis because he points out that the market will not pay a lot in certain circumstances and that some things don’t work in certain circumstances. This annoys newspaper folk because they think that they should make a lot of money in circumstances where the market won’t pay and want to do things that don’t work. In other words, they’d rather do things their way than make money.
“This annoys newspaper folk because they think that they should make a lot of money in circumstances where the market won’t pay and want to do things that don’t work.”
Ah, that explains it. Instead of merely working to earn a living, I should be demanding more pay and conforming to a non-journalist’s perspective/stereotype of what a journalist is.
> Instead of merely working to earn a living,
Do you really think that “working to earn a living” is meaningful? No one cares how much or how hard you work.
> I should be demanding more pay
Demand whatever you want. I’m discussing the limits on what you’re going to get.
> and conforming to a non-journalist’s perspective/stereotype of what a journalist is.
You seem to think that calling yourself or being a journalist means something that it doesn’t.
If you don’t produce something that I want or demand more than said something is worth to me or more than it costs me to get a comparable thing from someone else, I won’t give you any money for said something. Period. There is no “working to make a living” exception. There is no special rule for journalists.
Journalists keep saying that they should be paid decently, yet won’t consider producing news that is good, valuable (to their readers), and unique. If all three are too hard, valuable and unique might be lucrative.
Good alone won’t do, which is fortunate in some sense because if you’re not doing sports or society, your deserved rep is lower than that of used-car dealers, and they didn’t get ahead by becoming saints.
Value to readers is the upper limit on what can get. However, without unique, you’re competing with folks who will low-ball the prices. (There is money in commodity news, but it’s brutally price-competitive.)
Got it Andy…and that makes sense.
Clearly, newspapers have to adapt and many yet haven’t.
“When people really want or need something, they will pay for it, one way or another. If today’s publishers cannot convince their readers to do so, they will be overtaken by others that can.”
What exactly is wrong with this statement?
I BOUGHT and PAID for WWGD because it was something I was interested in and wanted (not needed). If the FT (or any publication) can produce accurate, timely, exhaustive research on a given topic which outshines anything “freely” available, then people will pay for it – IMHO.
Reclaiming Ad Dollars via ‘Value Added Services’?
My local daily here in Burlington, Vermont – led by Publisher Brad Robertson – is aiming to do just that with a new service called ‘191 College’ (named after the papers address).
What makes me curious about the service is if it will eventually replace the printed page.
Is this the future of news media organizations?
Can a daily become the ‘McKinsey & Company’ of its small community?
Article:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090525/BUSINESS/905250303/1003/Business+Monday++Free+Press+launches++191+College+
I find it interesting that here in the U.S. our ‘papers’ are dying, barely able to keep one afloat per town, while in Bagdahd they have a large number of organizations that claim to be newspapers. (I admittedly don’t know too much about this, but one list I found included 13 or so)
Part of me has to believe the most telling comment is the ‘or will be overtaken…’ Folks want news. Folks want great reporting (including investigative and analytic). We’ll get it. Just won’t be from the old guard who are tied down financially by distribution systems that no longer work.
I don’t know what to say. There is no revolution here. Just a sleek new breed of sheep.
FYI jarvis is a journalist, has been reporting online on this blog and off for years since his days with tv guide
Yes, and I’m sure he broke a lot of important stories at TV Guide. Like when Tootie got her period, or maybe the controversial season premieres of “Dallas” and “Dynasty,” when it turned out that Bobby Ewing wasn’t dead after all, and neither were the more important Carringtons and Colbys. The world was much better off after Jeff informed us that “Taxi” had moved to Wednesday nights.
Jeff Jarvis is blinded by the sheer illumination from all the zeroes on his paychecks. And because he’s successful and well-compensated, he naturally assumes that journalists are just as lucky. Dude has the all-out GALL to bray about the vow of poverty he took, like he’s the only one who ever did. Like he’s the only one who stuck to his principles, while everyone else joined this mad-lucrative business where manservants deliver foie grois to gold-lined desks and we all order our underpaid assistants to chase down leads men of our stature cannot be bothered with. Because, you know, we’re all fat and stupid.
Here Jeff gets to plead his case to the converted, those whose opinions of journalists are informed on the pressed-suit gasbags they boo on television or that jagoff in all those movies and television shows callously interfering with police investigations and other assorted dramas. To them, a sports editor at a weekly in Laramie may as well be Dan Goddamn Rather. Seriously: how many journalists do most of you actually know? How many have you engaged or interacted with in the wholes of your lives? How many of you actually realize what it sometimes takes to assemble the information you read calmly over your morning grapefruit?
Do I want a cookie for stating that all I want to do is work for a living doing the thing I love? No, I just want the owner of this blog to acknowledge that journalism isn’t a lucrative business, never was a lucrative business, and very few of us entered it expecting it to be. He’s not the only purist on this blood-soaked playground. All I ever wanted to do was write, and the fact that I’ve somehow built a career out of what I did as a lark when I was a kid, just filling notebooks in my bedroom, means a lot to me. How many of us are lucky enough to make a living on our own names and reputations? Well, I consider myself fortunate, and I want my luck to continue. So, hey. Crucify me, please, for fighting for what I love so acutely, at a depth I cannot articulate. I know that that kind of passion makes me a Luddite in this Brave New World, where it’s all about customer service, perceived value, and peeling his lordship the public’s grapes as he yays/nays this concept and that angle — that is, when his gaze can be coaxed from the mirror.
Funny thing is, I love the Internet. It’s been great to me these last 13-14 years as a professional. I’ve used it every day since my early 20s, when it had to be dragged online with a squealing modem, and it’s kind of funny to watch you guys drool over it like it’s some fascinating new toy. If newspapers go away, really, I don’t care. Less ink and paper to toss. I’m just a little leery about following you into what you hope is Info-Utopia.
Such anger.
All I’m saying is that the scale for journalists’ pay will be different when they are independent and not working for the monopoly companies that are failing. And so the question we’ll be asking as we see journalists start businesses (I met with three of them last night) is what is possible. I’m working to maximize that revenue but I’m saying in this post that the starting point won’t be what monopolies paid. Sad but true. I know people who are losing their newspaper jobs at six figures – which I consider good pay – and will have to decide whether they can make it on less and still do journalism. I hope that amount will rise but we’ll know only through experience.
I apologize for the bile. I’m at a curious crossroads professionally, and while I find the prospect of possibilities exhilarating, there’s also incredible fear, and sometimes I let it get the best of me. But it’s hard to come online and read so much of the futurist punditry cheering the demise of livelihoods — not necessarily because there’s something better on the horizon, but because they’re gung-ho about destroying the loathsome “MSM” with little to no concern as to what will replace it.
I agree that six figures is good pay. In fact, I would call it exceptional. Where I come from, a six-figure journalist is called a publisher.
Thanks, Mike. Understood. It is hard times.
> not necessarily because there’s something better on the horizon, but because they’re gung-ho about destroying the loathsome “MSM” with little to no concern as to what will replace it.
Feel free to ignore the folks who actively want to destroy the MSM.
Did you ever wonder why so many people don’t care whether the MSM survives? Assuming that they don’t care what, if anything, will replace it, doesn’t that tell you something important about what the MSM means to them?
[...] A paper on papers’ future // [...]
[...] thinking about Jeff Jarvis this morning as I opened up my snail mailbox and got a pamphlet/flyer (image below, care of my [...]