Comments on: Old Media Falling Into The “Digeration Gap”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:09:33 +0000

Good post and very perceptive. I think you hit the head on the nail on so many points. It's too bad you didn't suggest new models for media in the blog, too. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
The reason you hear the type of logic found in the Time executive's speech and coming from other traditional media executives is because the executives/leaders don't know what to do; they've defaulted to what they do know.
And the Web is changing so rapidly these big organizations can't keep up because of their cultures and structures.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the subscription model online. Print customers have been complaining about "subsidizing" online readers for years. But the "subscription" model cannot/must not be the only or primary revenue generator.
You said: "There's one little piece of information that those on the wrong side of the digeration gap are failing to realize: Tomorrow's business model is about the individual, not the corporation."
Old media gets this. I don't think the leaders know how to turn this on its head and apply it to running a company.
One last point: You may not like it, but news is expensive. And not all information is equal or even worth the time it takes to mentally absorb it.
Google, Yahoo and all the other search engines are not creating news/information. They're aggregating it from old media companies that pay salaries of professionals to produce news/information.
In today's Web world, anyone can write or post comments. Not all that information is worth reading.
Individually submitted content is fine for what it is -- complementary information. It adds extra layers. And in some case, the content is the main source.
Last on paying for content:
Well, people already are indirectly paying for content via their Internet providers via laptops or smart phones. People aren't "conscious" of that reality.
So key to old media's success is understanding the importance of producing or providing content people will pay for without even thinking about the fact they are paying.
I'm certain there is a model for that.
I'm not so certain, however, the current old media companies can or will make the transition to the new media world. That could bring about the birth of new companies. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

By: Chris Harges

Chris Harges — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:04:00 +0000

Like it or not, content costs money. The fact that some people want to create content and give it away for free doesn't mean that the content didn't cost the creator.

I agree that the journalism-creating corporations need to find a new way to fund what they do. If they all to go away and we wake up to find our only sources of info are citizen journalists and government/corporation propagandists, we'll all long for the good old days.

Sometimes it takes an organization to train, coach, police and equip its members to do more than they could as individuals.

The problem that the media faces is that it's been taken for granted. Because it is, for the most part, objective in its reporting, it's attacked as biased by both sides of an increasingly ideologically polarized audience. That makes for a lot of dissatisfied consumers looking for something better to spend their money on.

I think of it like the anti-vaccination movement. We've had the luxury of the benefits of vaccines for so long that people now believe we can do without them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:33:00 +0000

Great piece. Quite thought provoking. I still have two concerns. Not all information and news is created equal. Great news from NY Times et al is of signicant value. Don’t want to rely only on bloggers and Fox. So, question is how can they monetize enough in order to maintain quality?

http://edwardboches.com/

By: everysandwich

everysandwich — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:20:00 +0000

This last election season I think corporate media embarrassed itelf by completely chucking even a pretense at objectivity. Ironically, that commitment to objectivity (an unattainable absolute, maybe, but driving better journalism historically)is the one thing that could make information worth paying for. These days objectivity is a convenience. It saves me the time of corroborating elsewhere. But many outlets, including the NYT in my opinion, threw it away and cheapened the profession.

Admittedly, that's probably not enough to save subscription media, but it's better than nothing.

But so far only two things I know of pay for a news operation. Subscriptions and advertising -- or in the case of PBS maybe, taxpayer money. If subscriptions won't work and we rely on advertising, the privacy issues associated with things like behavioral targeting will be even more front and center.

Beyond advertising and subscription, I just don't know what the model would be. I'd love to hear suggestions though.