Newspaper execs treading carefully on antitrust laws
The Newspaper Association of America just confirmed to me that it organized a meeting of top newspaper executives in Chicago today “to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.” That’s from a carefully worded statement by NAA president John F. Sturm, who also noted that “antitrust counsel” was present at the meeting. He said participants “listened” and “shared” but clearly intended to preclude the possibility that they collaborated in any way.
Why so cautious? Well, surely the executives discussed ways to charge for content online, but they can’t appear to be coordinating a move to erect pay walls around their sites. That’s illegal. The industry would like an antitrust exemption, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports the idea, but the Obama administration is opposed.
Today’s meeting was first reported by The Atlantic’s James Warren. The NAA wouldn’t initially confirm its involvement when I asked this afternoon. Sturm’s full statement is after the jump.
Newspaper industry executives met in Chicago today under the auspices of the Newspaper Association of America to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.
Following hearings in committees of both the House and Senate, the group discussed business topics such as protection of intellectual property rights and approaches to the Congress and Administration to address these and other issues.
With antitrust counsel present, the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online. The participants also shared success stories in driving new revenue to their newspapers products.
UPDATE, 6:26 p.m.: The AP reports, “Thursday’s meeting was called ‘Models to Lawfully Monetize Content,’ according to an agenda obtained by The Associated Press.”
Zachary M. Seward | May 28, 2009 | 5:33 p.m.
Tags: antitrust exemption, antitrust laws, James Warren, John Sturm, Nancy Pelosi, Newspaper Association of America, paid content, pay wall, The Atlantic
Yes, there may be legal issues now that everyone knows about the meeting, but if I were in their position, I’d take a chance. Newspaper organizations are going to end if they don’t do something. I hope they charge for content. Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl1HsZpKAdQ
Suppose the CEO’s of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, etc. all got together at a secret meeting to “discuss business?” What would the “journalism community” have to say?
@Walter Abbott – you mean like a CARTEL?
Shocking that such a possibility exists when it comes to the newspaper moguls who are in a death-roll for failing to adapt to the Internet especially since it’s been a mass communication medium since 1995 – not nearly enough time to give them the ability to adapt.
At least not enough time when recognizing that their monopolizing methods, deep pocket lobbying and 20th century big business structure are not any different than GM and Chrysler or the financial sector major players.
“to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering” – they have no intention or willingness to move beyond what made them so wealthy for so long. Another dying breed hoping to strong-arm through the changing landscape.
AP should really hav had a hard time to obtain that agenda, given the fact that accoring to Warren AP’s CEO Tom Curley attended the meeting
It’s not surprising the “if it’s free it’s for me” crowd are wincing and whining over this effort while drawing bad analogies and then linking to newspaper stories about it.
If you could get free gas or oil on the internet you can bet the executives of Exxon Mobile, Chevron so forth would be getting together to figure out how to stop people from stealing their products. Bloggers would have very little to blog about without all the content they get for free i.e. steal from legit news sources. Come on people,grow up, newspapers are businesses not charities. This isn’t surprising at all.
I call shenanigans!
I challenge the newspapers to open these meetings to the public and to publish unedited transcripts.
If this were any other business group the FTC would be all over them.. and maybe it is time that the FTC begin to investigate this possible conspiracy, this is the second secret meeting that they’ve held.
The problem with newspapers is: inept and myioi c management, a radical change in CONSUMER preferences, a radical shift in ADVERTISER preferences of advertising, and ebay and Craigslist that killed the newspaper’s monopoly on classifieds.
What the newspapers really want is to regain their control as the sole gatekeepers of information and content.
Of course, their biggest problem is that fewer and fewer people want their content. When all they do is to report the government line, without any investigation of their own, what they produce is relatively worthless. After all, if all they want to do is be stenographers to power, I can always go the White House website and read their statements myself.
Don’t ever forget the lead up to the Iraq war. Where these very same newspapers helped lie this nation into war. They willingly printed all the lies the government was putting out. At the same time they willingly ignored all the other voices that were out there warning against this.
The same is true for the Wall Street fraud games and the economic collapse. The same is true for Enron, who the newspapers loved right up until its collapse. The same is true over and over. Its happening today with the idea of war with Iran.
The newspapers made themselves worthless by their choices on what to print and what not to print. Right now, I wouldn’t trust them to tell me the sun is going to set in the west. And I sure as heck wouldn’t pay for their information. They’ve lost all credibility.
PS … the information on the websites isn’t without revenue today. The newspapers make revenue on their websites using the same model as television. Ie, the more viewers they attract to their website, the more they make from all those ads that crowd every one of their webpages.
Its ‘free’ in the same way over the air TV is ‘free’. As long as you don’t mind that your screen is about 75% ad and about 25% content when you are reading their ’story’ that they don’t make enough money off of you.
Hey Scott Bailey,
Your analogies are broken. Gas and oil are real, physical products. If I use a barrel of crude, I take away the ability of others to use it. So, if I were somehow able to get oil for free at the expense of an oil company, the oil companies would have a reason to come after me. That could be properly described as “theft”.
Newspapers, on the other hand, simply aggregate and/or manufacture “news”. Reading news on the Internet does not reduce the supply of news. It’s not “stealing” to get news without paying for it.
If I were jimmying the lock on a newspaper box, you might have a case.
I think it’s hilarious that these upper-management paper-bound execs have to spend who knows how much money to fly somewhere and discuss 1990s-era monetization strategy.
Newspaper people seem to generally share a delusion of grandeur. They served society well at one time, but society is moving on. People will always find ways to get news, whether the papers decide to evolve their business model or die forgotten. This is hardly a big deal.
Other than the joy of knowing that the sulzbergers are no longer pocketing dividends from their former cash cow, the most delicious part is that we get to witness Pinch bring down a dynasty that was handed to him by daddy in great condition at the time.
Let the Dept of Justice know that you think that the news industry cabal should be investigated.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm
—–
For decades newspapers and television fed at the trough of overpriced car ads, real estate ads and classifieds overall. While the demise of the car and real estate ads are being blamed on the recession, this is a red herring. The internet allows full tracking and metrics on whether any ad campaign succeeds in converting the target audience into paying customers. And the auto and real estate companies are now realizing just how much money they wasted on overpriced ads. While the recession will end at some point and we’ll enter a new period of growth, what won’t end is how tight-fisted auto companies and real estate companies are going to be. And better metrics is just the tip of the newspapers’ problems. Craig’s List and auto/real estate companies own web sites open up what was a closed and tightly controlled publishing system. No longer. Big ad spenders of the past are now their own publishers and have alternate routes that are better at reaching their customers than anything in the past. It can’t get any better for the dinosaurs, it will only get worse. Especially as the dinosaurs continue to long for the glory days of yesteryear, and continue to push the ideas of walled gardens, paying customers, and fixing “ip theft”. Most likely, only the most stubborn mules are going to attempt to use a “walled garden” to try and squeeze readers. And that will make watching their implosion all the more fun to watch.
God bless Craig’s List.
The problem faced by these “leaders” is simple.
To run a successful website, one needs the journalists, editors/managers, webmaster(s), and very little else. There’s no room for high
flying execs with oversized egos and
compensation packages, or multinational
corporations with agendas and control issues.
I run a community news site and consider their decision to monetize their content a blessing that will do nothing but drive the public to community sites like mine. I will benefit as they slowly die. That is why this attempt will not work because not everyone will go pay, and they will benefit when the corporate media tries to. You can make money advertising supported but the papers have not learned how to extract the most benefit from their archives. It’s not pay to access… While I do not yet get as much content as the local paper. My content is local news, and I get more and more sources each and every day.
Newspaper consolidators are so indebted that they are unlikely to survive long enough to worry about anti-trust action.
“That’s illegal.”
It *might* be illegal. The problem with antitrust law is that it criminalizes perfectly ordinary business practices, but you have no way of knowing beforehand what’s legal and what isn’t. So at some point you were making deals then, after the fact, you find out you were colluding. Or you were discounting your product and then find out you were actually dumping. Or you were raising your prices and then it becomes price gouging.
“who also noted that “antitrust counsel” was present at the meeting”
That you think this somehow proves underhanded dealings just shows how naive you are. Oh, right, you’re a bunch of journos.
@Reality Check,
Just curious, by your logic, only products with limited supply are worth $$. To that end, music is available to everyone online for a price. But I can download a track without “taking away the ability of others to use it.” I would not be reducing the supply of music. Do you think digital music should be free as well, or is that theft?
The concept of a dozen giant American media conglomerates working in concert to develop a go-to-market pricing model is very troubling, the scope of which is noted in this posting, http://edit30.com/?p=817, at the blog edit30.
It’s ironic to note that for decades newspapers published articles and opinions citing the historic demise of the railroads and their myopic outlook which should have considered their industry to be in the “transportation” business and not the railroad business. But, what none on this comment list has touched on is the notion that newspapers are a longstanding critical component of the free press which has been a cornerstone in the maintenance of freedom in America, and one that the public should help maintain, if only for their own interests in preserving a sound democracy.
We can’t keep saying information wants to be free, then wonder where all our jobs went.