More content charge logs on the fire

So the NAA hosts some meeting last night (5/28) of numerous executives…plenty of intrigue as to whether is was a secret, supposed to remain a secret, the intended agenda, the agenda after the fact, etc.

I noticed Editor and Publisher rolled out an article that centered on paid content and it having potentially been a topic.  It was only midly interesting to read, in so much of raising the question of anti-trust laws if newspapers were to put everything behind a pay wall.  So, this strikes as a boring question on two counts.  First, what, my, oh my, were to happen if all newspapers were to charge for their printed products?  Yeah…see what I mean?  Secondly, the concept of anti-trust in a scheme where all newspapers go behind pay walls is…well, flawed.  Completely choking off the entire supply of all free news of interest to consumers by newspapers charging is a falacy.

This topic will, I believe, continue to surface for some time to come.  When does it finally and conclusively go away?

Murdoch myopic?

 

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Rupert Murdoch put forth an interesting prediction during a recent conference call.  CNN has a nice rollup to read.  Murdoch’s hypothesis is that “online advertising revenues are not enough on their own” and the current free access business model favored by most content providers was flawed.  The translation is that Murdoch and the empire that is News Corporation is eye-balling some form of a model that charges for newspaper websit content.

 

Rupert Murdoch I am not…so says I with vastly more joy than disappointment, by the way.  I do boldly contend, however, his approach is flawed by way of myopia.  Specifically, a gaping hole exists in the net they might cast and it is simply this: there are other choices for news on the internet.  To be fair, I am confining that judgment to just news – not feature and opinion piece work.  Without delving deeply into nauseating detail, just consider several categories: international news, national news, sports, weather and business.

While the following list is far from inclusive, it is thrown together quickly to demonstrate that in a space of a few minutes a consumer could easily identify numerous sources for content: CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, Bloomberg.com, ESPN, SportingNews, Weather.com, Accuweather, and the list goes on.  Oh, there’s even gocomics.com for the lover of comics.  Again, none of these are what would fit the definition of a “newspaper website.”  An interesting argument might center around content of a local nature since, after all, newspapers have long represented a majority voice in covering local news and events.  That’s a tangent worth exploring, even though local and hyper-local content is of relatively minimal bearing on Murdoch’s specific plan.  It is, of course, of great bearing to us. 

Take the Gazette here in eastern Iowa.  Gazetteonline.com is no-fee today and we connect daily with an ever-growing piece of the community.  Our value to the community is largely embodied in the local content, local context and convenience of delivery to the customer.  In short, they have access to content of a local nature in local perspective in one spot.  So, let’s assume we go “Murdoch” on our community and only provide our content on a subscription basis.  What is the average area resident going to do when faced with such a choice.  They do have a choice and it is more than either pay and get the content or don’t pay and go without.  There are local television stations and local radio stations in the area that already provide online content ranging from international to local.  Let’s also not forget the groundswell that is social networking.  If you don’t think venues such as Facebook, Twitter and others to be conduits for news and developing events, you might want to reconsider.  In short, most local newspapers web sites are not positioned such that they can view the community as hostages to paying for content.  I freely concede there is some content such as features and opinion pieces that are lock, stock and barrel proprietary to a newspaper.  Is that enough?  No.  This may be Iowa (and some are pretty convinced it is at least heaven on earth), but newspapers charging for the online content is like plowing your corn under and building a baseball field.  Remember Field of Dreams?

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

They’ll turn up your driveway, not knowing for sure why they’re doing it and arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past.
“Of course, we won’t mind if you look around,” you’ll say.  “It’s only $20 per person.”
And they’ll pass over the money without even looking at it.

 

Good luck with that, Mr. Murdoch.