Section 2 - Being the most influential papers, they must make the first move and deliver content online but both need to do it together as the 'newspaper is all but dead'. Just as TV did with Cable, content could help newspapers online.
Section 3 - In 95' the Internet was a mere whisper but 5 years later, it came as a consideration in daily American life. Putting content behind a paywall will lose readers but revenue will grow when online news becomes blocked and you need a subscription.
Section 4 - Scenarios on what would happen if Times & Post built that Paywall. 3 Scenarios on what would happen if both together went and built that Paywall, both would survive, and maybe lose readers, one where they do not survive, America loses daily newspapers due to not enough online subscriptions.
David Simons talks about how the Newspaper industry is 'all but dead' and something needs to change, the biggest newspaper industries in America are The New York Times and The Washington Post, both national newspapers are critically acclaimed and the Times even publishes on a Sunday, making its newspaper $6 whereas the normal price is $2.50,both are able to generate profit due to being great newspapers but how long can this carry on for, most newspapers in Simon's eyes are dying and it is up to the two newspaper executives to change this and put there online content behind a Paywall, by doing so, Simon's believes that they will help other newspapers and will not be ridiculed by this decision, but if one puts there online and the other doesn't the one that doesn't will benefit highly due to the fact that they would say to there public that they do not believe in revolutionizing their newspaper to put it online, and the online one whichever it may be will go bust, they must both make a decision together to put there content behind a paywall, they may not receive great subscriptions straight away, but HBO also didn't when they switched to Cable, they may lose up to 10% of readers but this could be beneficial and profitable, but is has to be done together, if both do not make money and they may have to close down but could America deal without its biggest and most influential newspaper industries. Simon's also gives 3 scenarios where he believes that both will still stay in business and will be acclaimed for there decision to go behind a paywall.
Comment 1:
Newspapers don't make profit nor do they pay journalists with subscription revenue. Subscription revenues pay for printing and distribution.
Online advertising generates less revenue than print advertising because the ad sales folks don't know how to sell it. Or price it.
Revenue generated by cable television is itty-bitty peanuts for cable networks. The real revenue for cable networks is advertising.
Local television news programs realize no meaningful revenue from cable subscribers. Local news programs generate revenue with advertising. Local news programs are delivered free to our televisions. This is stunning in its similarity to the current internet news model.
Folks using the internet pay for access, just like cable viewers.
Here's one item that troubles me: The proposal that newspaper subscription revenue pays for journalism. This is false. Advertising pays salaries. What is it about journalism, and journalists, that makes their words more valuable when printed on a piece of paper than displayed on a screen?
The ideas presented are interesting in their naivete. Go ahead, try the ideas. In time those pay-only news organizations will realize someone has been drinking their milkshake.
This person does not agree with the fact that Newspapers should put there content behind a paywall, they think that newspapers do not make a profit or pay journalists, they also believe that online advertising generates less profit than print, they even believe that cable doesn't make much of a profit without advertising, they believe that is the idea is put across, another newspaper will come and take the limelight.
Comment 2 :
This is brilliant. The Post and the Times need to do this.
Anyone who has studied this issue will recognize the boldness of Simon's solution.
John Paterson, wrote a short review saying that he agree's with this and calls it a 'solution' due to him studying the idea, and being one of the few people that agree with it even though he may have studied the issue, John calls it 'brilliant' and agrees that The Post & Times 'need' to do this and put there issues behind a paywall.
Comment 3:
I fully agree with David Simon.
The big dogs of journalism must act soon and decisively if they want to save the virtues and quality that define the very notion of their profession.
I'd really rather pay for a good, interesting, unbiased, informative, product of journalism than read amateur bloggers who jot down a few sentences and then cover half of the screen with screaming advertisements.
The following person went onto comment saying that they 'fully' agree with Simon's, they believe that the big players must act quickly to save the virtues and quality of their profession, saying that he'd rather pay for a good interesting and unbiased product of journalism and he says that this would basically be more beneficial than reading news from amateur bloggers who use most of the space to cover the screen with advertisements.
In my own opinion I believe that Simon's has a valid point, putting content online could probably be more beneficial to the new generation, he speaks greatly about how two of the biggest players in the newspaper industry need to get together and make this decision and even if they are ridiculed by it most would have to accept it, due to the fact that they are the biggest newspaper companies in America, but I do not see a person of my age paying for news, the younger generation can access news very easily on a smartphone or on the internet, in the day and age of applications such as BBC News and social networking sites such as Twitter, why would someone envisage newspapers asking for money to view there news, also, there could only be one age group that prefers this, as the older generation would prefer reading news on print and paying that $2.50 where they can read useless stories which entertain them rather than clicking on a browser finding there scoop of daily news, for the younger generation, many would prefer social networking sites and apps such as BBC News but if Twitter ask for a subscription fee just as BBC News did would we still pay for it, the answer has to be no, because these industries would just open a massive gap in the market for new news applications and new social networking sites, this would not at all be beneficial to the 'big dogs' and could become incriminating towards there annual profits. People will always find a way to get news free, and we have seen that happening when people used to stand outside TV shops without any audio watching the news and seeing short clips of whats happening and in my opinion I believe that our generation is so technologically gifted that finding another way to access news would not be so hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment