The future of advertising-supported journalism

[Garrett Wollman]

<<On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:02:52 -0800 (PST), Sean Smyth <ssmyth@psualum.com> said:

> As far as ISPs getting dragged into the mix and paying for content,
> well, desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd like to see
> someone *try* it. It won't be successful without some painful
> litigation, but someone needs to try.

They would be laughed out of court.

ISPs have no more obligation to content providers than the parcel
delivery service has to the factory worker in China who made your
Christmas gifts.

The newspapers actually have an economic model that could work, if
they stopped wasting so much money and capital on that antiquated
flattened-mashed-tree thing with stains on it, and concentrated on
doing good, local, important journalism.  But it's doubly difficult
for them in this market, when advertising is down all around, and most
publishers are saddled with stupid levels of debt.  Written-news
organizations do actually have a UVP (that's "unique value
proposition", or marketing-speak for "a reason why a rational person
might actually want their product instead of someone else's"), but
they have lulled themselves into complacency, assuming that consumers
would stick with the incumbent news sources when given no reason to do
so (and ample reason not to).

What *are* all those newly-minted J-school graduates going to do in
this Brave New World of media?

Radio has many of the same problems: by failing to recognize and
capitalize on their own UVPs, radio stations are being seen more and
more as inferior substitutes for an iPod.  Why would anyone listen to
WBZ if the product is not local, fresh, and topical?  Or at least
entertaining?  Accurate, even?  (I'm looking at you, Metro traffic.)

-GAWollman