Tote bags? They’ve had ‘em for years.My concern: no one has estimated, evaluated & calculated the incremental revenue. NYT runs conferences & special events. They’ve started a Wine Club. They sell Crossword Society subscriptions: Crosswords US $44.95; Canada $59.95.

Is that a membership or a subscription? The conversation shouldn’t devolve into a discussion of premiums. Not even banks give away toasters anymore, although ING Direct does sell Peet’s coffee and 25 minutes of Wi-Fi for two bucks.

Mugs? How about foul weather gear? I trust you haven’t splurged for the “New York Times Umbrella and Raincoat Set, Designed by Isaac Mizrahi.” Price : $99.00.

Remember the white gloves the Times once sold readers to keep them from becoming ink-stained wretches? Same as it ever was.

Thanks for this information; it has cleared up a few misconceptions I apparently had.

You clearly don’t have much experience with actual people.

One of the concepts to understand is that print media is driven by circulation and ad revenues, with paid subscribers forming a minority of income. The Washington Examiner is giving the incumbent legacies (Post and Times) a run for their money in DC by driving circulation up via free papers. If ad revenue is the driver, then the cost of the paper must be balanced by the cost per paper circulated. They also run an excellent on-line site and get ad revenue that way. That was the way newspapers were moving in the 1990’s, but none wanted to commit to that model as it is counter-intuitive that free distribution creates income.

Having grown up with parents belonging to a tiny third party, the newspaper run by the party depended on it for revenue and, due to doctrine, took no ads. The insular party organ tended to drift when it did not feature member problems with the party, itself, and the party continued to lose members. When postulating a concept of those owning a stake in an outlet via membership, the minority must have representation. If we criticize the legacy media as being insular, archaic and unable to host new voices across the political and social spectrum, then a diverse community that puts the paper out as reflecting the viewpoints of significant small ownership groups (say 2-5%) is not only necessary but mandatory: when you create an echo chamber your ability to discern what is and is not pertinent or even factual declines and you take that member voice for granted in doing so.

What has not been actively discussed is the member/owner/contributor concept. If the membership has a diverse population, across strata and socio-political bands, then the ability of members to get information out beyond just online but in a more material form gives a feeling of material ownership not only in the media outlet but in oneself and one’s value. Reporting factual information does not take a college level degree and when one does not want to report a ’story’ but such information, then just getting vital facts to the membership is a vital form of member ownership, feedback and contribution simultaneously. At some point interested members may decide that they enjoy their work enough to market it separately via other means while still retaining their previous outlet(s) as at least secondary if not primary venues for their work. That creates wider interest in the work, itself, and the membership community that has performed the hard job of getting to information in a fast, factual and pertinent means to the end of informing the rest of the members of what is going on.

There are both extreme up and down sides to member owned media, but the upsides can be major. And if an organization becomes too insular it loses members, oversight and becomes an echo chamber for repeated words that no one pays attention to. Just like the MSM. The New Media has opened a new ecosystem for news…and while first populations may dominate (blogs, social networks, video) they each change in response to each other. The printed word, or more correctly textual information, will not go away as text is a means for rich social discussion and has been created because we do NEED that rich form of communication.

Times keep changing, good stories, great graphics, and alternative soources of income, along with new and low cost ways of sourcing content are the way forward. I don’t know if a model change in the magic pill all hope for.

Mark Simon, Apple Daily Newspapers
Hong Kong

“In this vision, then, the basis of news is the platform, not the newspaper company. The value is built by owner-members, more than staff. The infrastructure for the network is a service to it, not a barrier to entry.”

Who, precisely, are these “owner/members?” The idea may be worthy, but seems to overlook some key facts, one being that newspapers are often adverserial in their endeavors. As a person who spent several years in the print journalism business, I can tell you that a good deal of any reporter’s time consists of talking to people who would really rather not talk to you. This could be a policeman, a local official under scrutiny, or someone who stands accused of a serious crime. Are we sure that everyone in the “community” will share the same idea of how to cover these kinds of stories? I am afraid they won’t. I worked in a small town where a highway superintendent was caught on tape trying to sell stolen construction equipment. His wife ran a local laundromat. Believe me, she told everyone who would listen (and many who didn’t ) not to believe what they saw in the papers, it was all lies, her husband didn’t do it. That is your community.

Also, there is the question of aptitude, plain and simple. People doing a reporter’s job, proficiently. Twitter and Youtube are not, alas, news. Tweeting about a demonstration gives you an idea of what is happening right there, not what is truly going on. Same with Youtube. You need someone to ascertain facts, not record events. It is not the same thing. Will the community pay for someone to do this?

Finally, there is the mundane. Who will sit in a folding chair for hours while a local zoning board pushes through an unpopular or controversial shopping mall? Or listen to a parent’s group come out in favor of a teacher who has been denied tenure? (Yes, I have done these things) This is the real deal, folks, this is community jouirnalism. It is not glamorous stuff, but it is news. Rather important news, at that, and not so easy to do. I would truly like to see if someone can explain how the community-based model can address these issues.

“In this vision, then, the basis of news is the platform, not the newspaper company. The value is built by owner-members, more than staff. The infrastructure for the network is a service to it, not a barrier to entry.”

Who, precisely, are these “owner/members?” The idea may be worthy, but seems to overlook some key facts, one being that newspapers are often adverserial in their endeavors. As a person who spent several years in the print journalism business, I can tell you that a good deal of any reporter’s time consists of talking to people who would really rather not talk to you. This could be a policeman, a local official under scrutiny, or someone who stands accused of a serious crime. Are we sure that everyone in the “community” will share the same idea of how to cover these kinds of stories? I am afraid they won’t. I worked in a small town where a highway superintendent was caught on tape trying to sell stolen construction equipment. His wife ran a local laundromat. Believe me, she told everyone who would listen (and many who didn’t ) not to believe what they saw in the papers, it was all lies, her husband didn’t do it. That is your community.

Also, there is the question of aptitude, plain and simple. People doing a reporter’s job, proficiently. Twitter and Youtube are not, alas, news. Tweeting about a demonstration gives you an idea of what is happening right there, not what is truly going on. Same with Youtube. You need someone to ascertain facts, not record events. It is not the same thing. Will the community pay for someone to do this?

Finally, there is the mundane. Who will sit in a folding chair for hours while a local zoning board pushes through an unpopular or controversial shopping mall? Or listen to a parent’s group come out in favor of a teacher who has been denied tenure? (Yes, I have done these things) This is the real deal, foks, this is community jouirnalism. It is not glamorous stuff, but it is news. Rather important news, at that, and not so easy to do. I would truly like to see if someone can explain how the community-based model can address these issues.

Prescient, that treatise.

The future of news is reporting. Reporters need to report-not- do rewrite from the many public, private, and policy groups who want their megaphone. They need the imprimatur of an owner. They need a dose of personality and viewpoint.

Committees and accountants want only what works for the 80% ignoring the 20% who come for the edge… The problem is that without that 20% seeking the edge the 80% wanders off. The individual is not static in desires and tastes. Even the advertisements are educational for the inquiring reader.

The internet is but one channel of distribution. News Corp (the evil empire) can collect from many reporters and distribute the same stories with different flavors across all their channels. NYTimes etc seeks to control the customer. Their reportage is slanted and biased. They have given up their role as the one-honest-newspaper-in-America… They are a bankruptcy awaiting the final shot.

Most of the electronic and broadcast media have no idea what they are doing with their 22 minutes every half hour… The last newscast of the day should not showcase upcoming entertainment as a news story… I don’t care who is on Letterman or Leno or Conan etc… Do not take the precious news minutes for teasers… Tell me about events, scandals, issues in my community and a dose of the national with sports and weather… This is just an example of simply not knowing what one is doing but keeping the flashing pictures flowing so that the accountants are happy… Most of the nations newspapers are in a similar failing and flailing state… Report write edit and add value to the work that you are doing…

A clear-cutting lumberjack works with wood… so does a skilled carpenter, cabinet or furniture maker… add value… give me something that informs, educates and entertains in exchange for my time and money…

“A business exists to serve the customer. The purpose of an investment is to make money.” Peter Drucker said that long ago…when the customer catches you making money they go elsewhere… Just as when an actor is caught acting the play folds or the movie goes straight to dvd…

I am reading many good books this year… I have plenty of time free from the TV and the daily newspapers… Once upon a time I read four a day and had the news channels going all day and evening… They were all caught “Making Money” from me…

Accountants do not invent or serve customers

“provide a watchdog role”? How about “serve a watchdog role”?

In any event, you’re confusing “do” with “could”.

Disagree? Let’s do an experiment. Pick up a local newspaper. Compare the coverage of the local school system(s) outside the sports section with the coverage inside the sport section.

Think that’s a one-off? Compare the police blotter (who got arrested for what) and incident-based coverage with the coverage of the local police department.

Note that local govts don’t advertise much, so it’s not like they’re placating advertisers by not ruffling govt feathers.

Agreed. How do we get four different news organizations featuring the same patient for a story on medical tourism?

http://www.seefirstblog.com/2009/08/22/the-curious-case-of-medical-tourism/

Do we need more than one newspaper if that’s what they’re going to do? And by “that” I mean rewrite press releases and present them as original reporting. They say original reporting is the “killer app” of the news business. I used to think so, but these days I’m not so sure.