Comments on: The Only ‘Journalism’ Subsidy We Need is in Bandwidth http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/ Creating a User's Guide to Democratized Media Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:58:19 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Seth Finkelstein http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-973 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:21:13 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-973 Sorry, I tried to pack too much material into a short comment, while also attempting to write it in a way intended to discourage certain possible lines of attack. Never mind. No good will come of it. Sorry, I tried to pack too much material into a short comment, while also attempting to write it in a way intended to discourage certain possible lines of attack. Never mind. No good will come of it.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-969 Dan Gillmor Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:41:17 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-969 Seth, I genuinely don't follow what you've said here. Seth, I genuinely don’t follow what you’ve said here.

]]> By: Charbax http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-964 Charbax Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:08:05 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-964 There can be about a dozen independent statistics services online like Google Analytics, Google Trends, Last.fm scrobbler (that actually counts how many times you play back the downloaded files), Razorback statistics and other p2p BitTorrent/eDonkey statistics of p2p activity, basically people would be encouraged to let the statistics companies count and monitor not only what they download (which statistics services already do) but also install plugins to video/audio player software and into the actual browser, like Sidewiki, like Google Toolbar, basically a tiny extension in the browser reports back to the statistics firms all the articles that you read. A desktop/mobile phone switch instantly stops/resumes the reporting of your activities, if you want to have some "private" time. If you just have 1/100 people voluntarily signing up to report back their media consumption to independent statistics firms, then you will have 1000x more precise statistics on popularity. And add to that, let people rate (I like) or like a "star" button on everything, or just let it count when the whole video was watched, the whole song listened or the whole article was scrolled through at reading speed, then that counts as something that interested the user. There can be about a dozen independent statistics services online like Google Analytics, Google Trends, Last.fm scrobbler (that actually counts how many times you play back the downloaded files), Razorback statistics and other p2p BitTorrent/eDonkey statistics of p2p activity, basically people would be encouraged to let the statistics companies count and monitor not only what they download (which statistics services already do) but also install plugins to video/audio player software and into the actual browser, like Sidewiki, like Google Toolbar, basically a tiny extension in the browser reports back to the statistics firms all the articles that you read. A desktop/mobile phone switch instantly stops/resumes the reporting of your activities, if you want to have some “private” time. If you just have 1/100 people voluntarily signing up to report back their media consumption to independent statistics firms, then you will have 1000x more precise statistics on popularity. And add to that, let people rate (I like) or like a “star” button on everything, or just let it count when the whole video was watched, the whole song listened or the whole article was scrolled through at reading speed, then that counts as something that interested the user.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-963 Seth Finkelstein Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:43:09 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-963 Dan, I realize A-listers basically need to hew to a line of rabid advocacy of advertising business models and all that entails, otherwise they'd get thrown out of the conference-club (it's not even frothing laissez-faire ideology, since per above, government subsidy is just fine if it's going to the businesses that A-listers serve!). But ... aren't you at least intellectually bothered by the need to fulminate against what's essentially the ONLY existing journalism model that's halfway functional RIGHT NOW? (i.e. public support) Not someday, not somewhere over the rainbow, not some little site held up as poster-child (e.g. TPMemo), not trust the A-list and if it doesn't work, well, they move on to the next hype/fad/attention topic. But, considered against the real world, isn't this standard convulsion itself an excellent exhibit in a Parade Of Horribles that should let us know something is wrong with it? Dan, I realize A-listers basically need to hew to a line of rabid advocacy of advertising business models and all that entails, otherwise they’d get thrown out of the conference-club (it’s not even frothing laissez-faire ideology, since per above, government subsidy is just fine if it’s going to the businesses that A-listers serve!). But … aren’t you at least intellectually bothered by the need to fulminate against what’s essentially the ONLY existing journalism model that’s halfway functional RIGHT NOW? (i.e. public support) Not someday, not somewhere over the rainbow, not some little site held up as poster-child (e.g. TPMemo), not trust the A-list and if it doesn’t work, well, they move on to the next hype/fad/attention topic. But, considered against the real world, isn’t this standard convulsion itself an excellent exhibit in a Parade Of Horribles that should let us know something is wrong with it?

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-962 Dan Gillmor Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:02:40 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-962 Not my favorite solution by a long shot. For example, who would decide specifically how to divide it up? We'd just be creating a new middleman, no? Not my favorite solution by a long shot. For example, who would decide specifically how to divide it up? We’d just be creating a new middleman, no?

]]> By: Dave Chase http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-961 Dave Chase Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:59:02 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-961 Nichols, McChesney and "Socratic" have a failure of imagination. Dave Smith (Mediasmith) had an article over on the Harvard Business blog about Twitter's business model (or what some think is the lack thereof). http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/10/twitters_business_model_brilli.html. Not long ago, people were saying the same thing about Facebook (i.e., no biz model). They achieved profitability faster than expected to due apps like Farmville with virtual goods. I'm not saying that exact model is the solution but it's new models that will offer a picture of the future. Looking in the rear view mirror for models -- i.e., simplistic display ad models -- of the future is folly. Some of the examples Dave gave could apply to the news business. I have bought a lot of media over the years as a marketer and can tell you that a print ad or 30 second spot isn't the holy grail of marketing. I now own a local news and info site among other things and have already had advertisers ask us for our "Twitter offering". We don't have one yet but it points out that even a small local deli is looking for alternatives to what used to be the only game in town -- the local newspaper. The basic notion of talking to prospective customers and actually listening combined with testing new ideas is the way to go. Paywalls are the biggest non-starter followed by micropayments. Both have been tried countless times and failed in virtually every instance. The real problem for the newspapers is their business people have been lazy and haven't gone out and spoken who should be their natural customers. At best they are covering 5% of the addressable market using old shoe leather sales models developed hmmm 200 years ago. New ad types, mobile apps, self-serve ads, Inside Sales models, and countless other innovations are out there. It's time for there to be a purge of the business people who've been lazy and put some people in who have some fire in their belly and some innovation. The bellyaching of this lazy bunch is getting tiresome. The latest is they gather yet again on Harvard's campus to rehash and nash team. They should be spending that time sitting down 1:1 with customers or perhaps putting up money for an X-prize of a new marketing tool to sell. And for the record, I agree with Dan's suggestion about if there is going to be any subsidy that it be for dark fiber. Nichols, McChesney and “Socratic” have a failure of imagination. Dave Smith (Mediasmith) had an article over on the Harvard Business blog about Twitter’s business model (or what some think is the lack thereof). http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/10/twitters_business_model_brilli.html. Not long ago, people were saying the same thing about Facebook (i.e., no biz model). They achieved profitability faster than expected to due apps like Farmville with virtual goods. I’m not saying that exact model is the solution but it’s new models that will offer a picture of the future.

Looking in the rear view mirror for models — i.e., simplistic display ad models — of the future is folly. Some of the examples Dave gave could apply to the news business. I have bought a lot of media over the years as a marketer and can tell you that a print ad or 30 second spot isn’t the holy grail of marketing. I now own a local news and info site among other things and have already had advertisers ask us for our “Twitter offering”. We don’t have one yet but it points out that even a small local deli is looking for alternatives to what used to be the only game in town — the local newspaper. The basic notion of talking to prospective customers and actually listening combined with testing new ideas is the way to go.

Paywalls are the biggest non-starter followed by micropayments. Both have been tried countless times and failed in virtually every instance.

The real problem for the newspapers is their business people have been lazy and haven’t gone out and spoken who should be their natural customers. At best they are covering 5% of the addressable market using old shoe leather sales models developed hmmm 200 years ago. New ad types, mobile apps, self-serve ads, Inside Sales models, and countless other innovations are out there. It’s time for there to be a purge of the business people who’ve been lazy and put some people in who have some fire in their belly and some innovation. The bellyaching of this lazy bunch is getting tiresome. The latest is they gather yet again on Harvard’s campus to rehash and nash team. They should be spending that time sitting down 1:1 with customers or perhaps putting up money for an X-prize of a new marketing tool to sell.

And for the record, I agree with Dan’s suggestion about if there is going to be any subsidy that it be for dark fiber.

]]> By: Charbax http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-960 Charbax Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:35:33 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-960 $5 per month per person would pay for all the artists, musicians, fil makers, journalists and bloggers, based on the measured popularity and quality of their works. No more publishers, newspapers, labels, production companies, distributors and other intermediaries. $5 per month per person would pay for all the artists, musicians, fil makers, journalists and bloggers, based on the measured popularity and quality of their works. No more publishers, newspapers, labels, production companies, distributors and other intermediaries.

]]> By: SocraticGadfly http://mediactive.com/2009/10/30/the-only-journalism-subsidy-we-need-is-in-bandwidth/#comment-957 SocraticGadfly Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:46:21 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=887#comment-957 Problems on your idea, though. First, not just now, not just not in the next five years, or 10, but, IMO... Advertising will NEVER "monetize" online news sites of national size and of national/international distribution. Beyond continually falling online ad prices, people who know what they're doing block most online ads with a mix of software and an updated hosts file. As this percentage gets larger, online ads will either get more "creative" (i.e. irritating), or dollars will drop further. I'm not saying Nichols is wrong; I am saying your idea is simplistic. MY solution(s) on the other hand, are less likely of adoption, because they start with depending on the corporate newspaper owners to show m ore brains about the Internet than they have in the past. And, my idea No. 1 is --- PAYWALLS! STOP giving sh*t away! If your website ain't making money on its own, then FIX THAT. Paywalls, reduced content, or even getting rid of it, if you need to. Problems on your idea, though.

First, not just now, not just not in the next five years, or 10, but, IMO…

Advertising will NEVER “monetize” online news sites of national size and of national/international distribution.

Beyond continually falling online ad prices, people who know what they’re doing block most online ads with a mix of software and an updated hosts file. As this percentage gets larger, online ads will either get more “creative” (i.e. irritating), or dollars will drop further.

I’m not saying Nichols is wrong; I am saying your idea is simplistic.

MY solution(s) on the other hand, are less likely of adoption, because they start with depending on the corporate newspaper owners to show m ore brains about the Internet than they have in the past. And, my idea No. 1 is — PAYWALLS!

STOP giving sh*t away! If your website ain’t making money on its own, then FIX THAT. Paywalls, reduced content, or even getting rid of it, if you need to.

]]>