We are only now learning how to sell audience based on what we know or surmise about our audience. But we moved beyond even that on Saturday, focusing on the messages businesses want to communicate to prospective customers, most of which should be...Thinking the unthinkable
Clay Shirky teaches about the social and economic effects of Internet technologies at NYU. In a post today, he explains why newspapers cannot survive. Here’s the nut graf:
“Newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. So who covers all that news if some significant fraction of the currently employed newspaper people lose their jobs? I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re collectively living through 1500 (when the invention of the printing press created a revolution and changed the world). During a revolution, it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it.”
Now follow this logic:
1. Journalism is essential to democracy.
2. Journalism costs money.
3. The old ways to fund journalism are no longer viable, so we need new ways to fund journalism.
4. Subscriptions, micropayments and philanthropy have never generated enough money to pay for journalism.
5. With or without newspapers, advertisers still need to reach audiences, and they’re willing to pay billions to do it, so advertising remains the most viable way to pay for journalism in the future.
6. To help advertising pay for journalism, we need to create forms that are more efficient and effective for advertisers without intruding upon the end-user. (See Matt Mansfield’s post on that here.)
7. However, we must also remain open to the possibility of funding journalism with means other than subscriptions, micropayments, philanthropy or advertising.
Read Shirky’s complete post here. It’s long, but it’s essential to your understanding that newspapers are doomed.
18. March 2009 at 1:14 pm :
Newspapers as we have come to know then ARE doomed… No doubt about it.
Journalism has to crawl out from behind the masthead, stand up and be respected.
The Matt Drudges and Ariana Huffingtons of the world are the way to go as far as representation goes.
But even they have problems related to their ad supported business model.
Pre-web:
If I made big trucks, why would I want to advertise on their magazines? “Trucker’s Weekly” Is just fine by me.
Cut to “The Web! 1.0″
If I made big trucks, why would I want to advertise on their sites? I got my own site.
Cut to “The Web 2.0″
If I made , why would I want to advertise on their site? My web site is so much better at collecting feedback, interacting with customers through blogs, podcasts, videos, sending emails and pushing news at people I KNOW were interested enough before.
Fade to black (ink AND pixels.)
The world is becoming topologically Balkanized.
Instead of by geography, the divisions are by informational category and ALL are accessible through the Web.
“Where” has become irrelevant as far as publication of information is concerned.
“Why” is now the question?
You can find any site, any information, on any conceivable topic, through Google (and other search engines.)
It can tell you what exists that’s _already out there_. It just can’it tell you any more than that.
Journalism is different though.
Its about _discovering_ facts and telling people about ‘em.
For that people have to be able to put a face to a name and know whether they can trust the name.
If that name becomes associated with taking only one slant and only one product, the person loses credibility and fades to black also. That person’s just a shill.
That is why the editor has to become known and recognized.
That is why the writer has to become known and recognized.
That is why the researcher has to become known and recognized.
That is why the fact-checker has to become known and recognized.
If any of them becomes compromised the entire enterprise becomes just a shill.
18. March 2009 at 1:24 pm :
The entire profession of journalism is a “marginal cost” as far as the old print media is concerned.
Where taking away the primary costs and we now have to become respectable and respected; at least enough to attract enough people to pay for the equivalent of a couple of stamps.
The salvation of journalism lies in an unexpected and unanticipated direction but a perfectly logical one: the Post Office.
19. March 2009 at 7:13 am :
Part of the lure of newspapers is finding the new, discovering the unexpected… On a search engine, I can only find more info about whatever I am searching for. Turning a newspaper page is an adventure that can lead me to something interesting and new. Something I never heard of before, some connection I never made before. This is “news.”
We still need photographers, writers and editors to present what they feel is new, different, exciting, enlightening. I still want people on the other side of the box creating home pages with something I did not expect.