[...] the digital media landscape or protect current revenue makers- traditional media. In fact many have debated that attempts to erect pay walls (comments directed squarely at Murdoch) are an attempt not to save [...]

[...] Niemann Foundation for Journalism, says the correct answer will likely be something he likens to a “pay fence,” where most news is available for free at a newspaper’s Web site, but a certain quantity of [...]

[...] or other methods for online news, but Zachary Seward at the Nieman Journalism Lab has a few points that he says are often overlooked in this [...]

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.

[...] Four observations about charging for news that are often overlooked, Nieman Journalism Lab [...]

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.

[...] Four observations about charging for news that are often overlooked – "Plenty has been written about the futility of erecting pay walls — much of which I agree with — but a few points are often overlooked." [...]

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

[...] SOBRE A questão dos pagamentos nos sites noticiosos, que agora voltou à ordem do dia, é preciso ler Four observations about charging for news that are often overlooked. [...]

Okay, what IS the future of news?