http://www.zeeol.com/suggestions-to-plan-for-your-license-exam.html

http://clydemorgan.blogpixi.com/2011/07/20/cinema-balexert/

It’s not counterintuitive, but it is wrong-headed . . . part of the group-think that is endangering journalism by tying it to the factory that is a modern newspaper.

Anyone digging into the history of the collapse of newspapers knows that the decline began two generations ago, in the mid-50s. The acceleration of that decline far preceded the Web. The industry was worried enough to spend decades grasping at the next program or technology to win back or win over Boomers and their descendants who flocked away from newspapers. Many pioneering newpaper web sites did have pay walls, and used online content as a hook for subscription sales. Putting editorial content on the web did not take newspapers down . . . . decades of rapacious business practices in business classifieds and advertising, in an attempt to continue one of the highest profit margins of any industry, did that quite well.

And the web provided an enticing, and much better, solution for aggrieved advertisers, especially in the real estate, employment and automotive categories. Real estate organizations and auto dealers, especially, found they didn’t need newspapers. That was the gun to the head of newspapers . . . not free content.

If it were true that a local newspaper, by putting free content on the web, harmed its circulation, then there would be only one logical answer: Shut down the web site. If the point is to save the newspaper print factory, with its huge expenses in raw materials, production, delivery and other costs that are NOT this vaunted valuable editorial content, then the only answer is to focus all resources on the print factory. The web site is a drain.

If you believe in horse-drawn carriages as your business model, why give even a nod to providing your customers with toy automobiles. Tell ‘em it’s the carriage, darn it, and they’d better keep buying them, or they’re going to lose the ability to travel from one spot to another.

I’m sure, faced with such an ultimatum, readers will flock to subscribe to the paper, whose content they value so much.

Or, newspapers could face up to some soul-searching about what they REALLY produce of value, shut down the print factory and get on with the business they profess to be in . . . the origination and distribution of quality journalism. No one is going to come up with a business model to save journalism until they model the right business.

Web people forget…They have no money…No revenue to pay for the free content they get from the print side.

What future business model will work if the pblic doesn’t pay for the news.

What new business model will support enough staff to have the quality of news the web now gets for free.

Either way, I was just referring to U.S. newspapers, though the situation is similar in most other countries. (European newspapers get more of their revenue from circulation. Don’t know much specifically about the breakdown for Australian newspapers.) Thanks for keeping me honest, Stephen. —Zach

And are you referring to all newspaper companies worldwide, or newspaper companies in specific countries or regions such as the US/North America? And are you referring only to daily newspapers?
Cheers,
Stephen Quinn in Australia

It’s a fair question, and I’d like to think you’re at the right domain for venturing an answer, but I wouldn’t presume to try it in a single blog post, let alone a blog comment. One piece I’m thinking about this weekend is paidContent’s report on Steve Brill, et al.’s plan to charge for portions of newspaper sites. Their figures look overly optimist, at first blush, but I want to get more details. —Zach

Okay, what IS the future of news?

Karsten, it does seem like the Times has a chance to charge for content on devices other than the traditional web browser. Times Reader is currently free for print subscribers (and no one else) but could probably be sold as a standalone product. Similar situation with the Kindle, other e-readers, and devices not yet invented. One advantage in those cases, as my boss Josh has argued, is that the owners of, say, a Kindle have already shown themselves willing to shell out a lot of money to access information and are probably less reluctant to pay for news as well. It may be a small market, though.

Happy to keep discussing this over the weekend. —Zach

It’s easy enough to nickel-and-dime people; we do it with the EZ-Pass on the turnpike all the time. It’s only hard when you *make them aware* of it. Pulling your wallet out and keying in numbers does that.

Give them something like the New York Times Reader, though, but with more added value (time savings, convenience, etc.), and media companies might be able to charge money again. Also, the move away from PCs to mobile, e-readers and, later, the digital living room will help, of course, as it opens up a slew of new revenue opportunities — all better than charging for something on the Web that’s currently free.

1) a unified system built right into the browser that ALL sites use (and that gives a user a common resource for how much they’ve spent/will spend), instead of unique registrations per site
2) a realistic cost per article (and we’re talking something even less than a penny) rather than the concept of a subscription per site. 10c per article, as some have proposed, is insanely high scaled up all over the internet

And this important comment came in via Twitter from Ryan Pitt of The Spokesman-Review: “Another thing often overlooked: Pay walls aren’t free. They cost $$ (& time!) to build, maintain, provide customer service for.” Very true, and thanks. —Zach

If newspaper brands can survive to be bought, or to eke out another few years of print viability, it’s only going to prolong the inevitable. On the other hand, if they can identify those aspects of their relationship with readers where they provide relatively unique value, they just might be able to rethink the distribution model to one that makes sense to all sides. Not an easy task to be sure, but the more they think of themselves as newspapers rather than content providers the sooner they will find themselves facing true obsolescence.

Murray’s absolutely right about the pay wall. In our work with consumerreports.org we thought of it more as a “pay fence,” carefully positioned to allow for a useful free experience while clearly communicating the value of the content beyond the wall.

And thanks, Jenna! —Zach

We know enough by now to know, almost intuitively, that this is spot-on. Play newspapers on, Zachary M. Seward.