Commentary

Information Wants To Be Free -- Or Does It?

Since Gutenberg's introduction of movable type in the 1450s, information has yearned to be free. The Licensing Act of 1662, followed by the Statute of Anne in 1710 , solidified the rights of authors. The U.S. Constitution codified the legal basis of copyright in 1787. As long as the printed word and art have been monetized, their producers have been protected from free distribution and compensated for their work.

Today, that model is under attack by the transformational technology of the Internet and its ability to simultaneously distribute content. But the same technology that threatens copyrights provides the most powerful and pervasive distribution network ever designed, benefiting authors by potentially exposing their work more than ever before.

This shift in distribution has forced content companies to devise entirely new business models to maintain profitability. It has also spawned whole new categories, like MP3 players and digital readers. For the most part, the music and book publishing business have managed to adjust, and the artists in these categories are still profitably producing music and books. When will newspapers catch up?

advertisement

advertisement

Today, newspapers are faced with a perfect storm of a bad economy, reduced readership and changes in news consumption habits. The bad economy has affected the retail, real estate and automotive sectors, resulting in far fewer ad pages and listings, the remaining pillars holding up newspapers after classifieds moved online. Decreases in readership of newspaper print versions have reduced circulation revenues, along with the rate base of papers that depend on these statistics to support ad rates. The online versions of newspapers, while gaining distribution and readers lost from print, have not recouped losses with online banner ad sales.

It's not pretty. It's bad for all of us. But, what can newspapers do?

Newspapers can start by using the same funding methods that they always have: advertising. Unlike with music or books, newspapers and magazines have always had a contract with their readers: in exchange for content, they will display advertisements. Despite this basic tenet, newspapers have failed to adequately monetize their online subscriber base and now risk going under, all in an effort to gain online readership.

Newspapers should not be giving away their online versions for the price of some banner impressions. Newspaper readers, online or offline, are a coveted audience with demonstrated purchase power. In exchange for getting their favorite editorial content and long-form journalism, readers should have to accept more targeted advertising -- or, if not advertising, at least pay for the online version of the paper. No ads, no subscription, no news, period.

This already works for --a publication currently planning to offer three tiers: Free, Subscriber and Premium. In a speech entitled "The Future of Newspapers: Moving Beyond Dead Trees," Rupert Murdoch said that while traditional newspapers may not come in printed format much longer, circulation gains will not only be through Web pages and RSS feeds, but also "email that delivers customized news and ads to our mobile devices."

Murdoch knows there is a large opportunity in the future to recover much of what has been lost by giving away news for free. He bought a newspaper in the midst of this trend. His answer is email and mobile, funded by targeted, customized ads.

With a few exceptions, newspapers don't give away their printed copies on the corner. They don't just give away ad space to any advertiser who just asks. So, why should they give news to anyone who wants it? In exchange for the daily news email -- or three -- newspapers should be confident that they can ask their readers for something in return: some demographic information and the right to send ads at a frequency that won't alienate the reader. If the free readers can't handle a couple of targeted email ads to pay for their favorite journalist, they have a choice: pay for the printed paper, or live without the news.

I'm betting that we would all prefer to get a few ads to paying full price. Who knows, maybe we'll even buy something because of them, and in this economy that wouldn't hurt. And it would certainly help the newspapers that so many of us love.

4 comments about "Information Wants To Be Free -- Or Does It? ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Jennifer Armor, December 8, 2008 at 1:18 p.m.

    With one or two exceptions, no paper has been able to charge for content. Period. Free is the only model that will work in the future with the number of news outlets and the availability of information. I agree that demographic information is a small price to pay for access to your favorite newspaper. But will advertisers pay for it?

  2. Chris Moschovitis from tmg-emedia, inc., December 8, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.

    Dave articulates the issue brilliantly.

    The “free” model was broken from day-one. Our position, and what we have been advising our clients, has been centered on a careful migration strategy from free to paid venues. Simply put, the same degree of “free” that you get at a newsstand needs to be translated on-line. Only now, your browser (or email, mobile, etc.) is the newsstand.

    You can glance at the headlines, you can look at the front page – but the minute you pick that “paper” up – you need to pay. The authors deserve it. The publishers deserve it, the advertisers need it, and the media business requirements demand it.

    Chris Moschovitis
    CEO
    tmg-emedia, inc.
    http://www.tmg-emedia.com

  3. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, December 8, 2008 at 3:26 p.m.

    Newspapers are too late to party reactive animals. Their management mode is cover your ass to keep your job and management from the top down will not be part of a major restructuring because they really do not know how and will not be told they will also be structured out the door.

    As for integrating product with journalistic reporting, it cannot happen. Integrity and truth will be compromised into oblivion if allowed. Free press would no longer be available and promotion goes beyond marketing a can of coke on the desk of a reporter who is cannot report defamatory comments when applicable e.g. high calorie sugar water causes obesity. As far as an ideology can take you to a deep dark closet is as far as it can handcuff and silence the press.

    Free? Nothing is free. Freedom is not free. "Free" news content will change. If not tomorrow, it will come.

  4. Dave Hendricks from LiveIntent, December 9, 2008 at 7:23 p.m.

    Hey Folks - thanks for the comments! My modest proposal is not to force folks to pay, but to require them to accept the occasional email ad sent to them in the regular stream of emails they get from the paper. If you don't accept advertising, you don't get the news. Advertising and News has gone hand in hand since Poor Richard's Almanac, and before that probably.

    Just because online news has been free for a short period of time doesn't mean that it makes sense for it to be free forever. We are killing the golden - okay maybe silver - goose by not paying our news gathering organizations for their product.

    Newspapers need to maximize their revenues. If they all woke up and started doing this they might be able to pay for some of their reporters and avoid layoffs. I hope they take me up on the offer to help.

    Dave@datranmedia.com

Next story loading loading..