On-line Journalism, paid or free? Decade old discussion is coming back
“The Americans don’t give a damn if the newspapers go down”, Christoph Keese, Springer’s head of public affairs
Some time ago Rupert Murdoch stated strongly that Google is his enemy in, I believe, monetizing from on-line media. Very brave, although both sides are super powers on their markets, I don’t believe such statement can call any of these two companies into real action. In this context, I prefer less conflict-generating message I read today in New York Times article. It is about Axel Springer’s approach to paid digital media.
This article highlights very important point, that can be missed in Murdoch’s yelling on “grand theft news”. Axel Springer’s name for that point is “noncommodity journalism” which has huge direct monetizing potential.
I agree on that point. I’m a blogger, I add my own two cents to gigantic basket of user generated information you can reach on the Web. In this basket, many of us, contributors, are pure amateurs with no pen-power. Some are just undiscovered natural-born talents. Judging on this dimension isn’t critical, I believe. We live in Web 2.0 era where users gained back ruling power over Internet, at least they think so in this highly commercialized Internet where vendors just give users more attractive and flexible tools. That’s the major difference between 90ties and now I see. 15 years ago when I discovered Internet I had to be a technically savvy to contribute back to the Internet. Who was not so savvy, could only communicate over Internet and download stuff. Now no technological knowledge is necessary to bring professional content to the Web and many people have already realized that.
So, in such a world, how can a publisher think of pushing me to pay for the digital information presented on their pages? High quality and rare content is the key. From undiscovered bloggers to big media companies I can simply split content to crappy and cool. Usually I perceive content crappy not because author has no writing skills. More often I’m disappointed because exposed topic gives just an idea, a beginning of something without any real content and good ending helping me to grow with my own conclusions. So I’m searching and search doesn’t help in crystallizing the idea. Even if it does I waste time to handle more information than I need to be finally able to articulate that missed conclusion.
I miss journalism with a thought so much that if I find such a source I appreciate it almost like a magical experience to live back in ancient times. There is so much just copied & pasted information repeated on the web that I’m astonished every time I find a jewel, where writers are people who really want to say something. More and more I’m trying to avoid semi-automatons driving for new clicks with every trick Web 2.0 technology gives them.
One of the unstoppable trends in the Web is to give as much as possible, as fast as possible. With that trick working next step is to bind people to the the resource and monetize indirectly. No one can fight with it and win. Fair enough, but I see more and more space for: (1) not so fast delivery, (2) not so much of information really hard to comprehend why I need it, (3) well written stories which have everything they should have to be perceived as complete.
Compare Kotaku or Polish Polygamia with Escapist Magazine or Edge in games industry to see one example. Totally different approach in news chasing.
December 8th, 2009 at 22:48
Exactly!
And talking about high quality content: let’s take a news article as an example. Does it contain the background of the news, does it analyze the issue from both sides perspective in a neutral way, does it actually investigate the issue and back the text with facts, etc.
If answer to these is “yes” then whoever provides that content will surely be able to sell it too, regardless of being a traditional paper-based media or Internet.
On the other hand, paper-based media can never compete with real-timeness of Internet. But do we need real-time? Sure, for some news it’s necessary to know. But what about next day? What about next week? Then you’d expect a bit more analysis: over time, as the event becomes older and older, one would expect more and more depth into the reporting.
Sadly, this is not always the case, for many reasons.
For example, dumb trash sells easily: just pick up any tabloid and you’ll find paparazzi pictures of Prince Harry drunk at a club and/or taking a shit while hiking. Seriously, who cares?
It’s much harder and slower for journalists to actually think while writing, and to really dig deeply into the issues at hand, offering the “full spectrum” of information around the issue. And it’s likewise much harder to be a thinking audience, to not accept at face value whatever is written, and to form a personal opinion, and to value quality over quantity.