
To me, there are open questions (and opportunities) in the hand wringing over newspapers’ demise. For one thing there’s the assumption that newspapers must be saved; and then there’s the lingering popular notion that people won’t pay for the news. I’d argue that a reasonable portion of the public now willingly pays for its daily dose of news, and there’s no reason to expect that to change – it’s just the business model that is changing (delivery, payment methods, content options, etc.), however painfully and publicly. Does it spell the end for more newspapers as we know them? Yes, especially some of the big ones that are leveraged to the hilt and face heavy local competition for readers/viewers and advertising. (As an Advertising Age article pointed out the other day, the vast majority of newspapers in the U.S. are actually doing fine, with annual profits on this or that side of 10%.)
Back in 1998, when I entered the online-news arena to launch BostonHerald.com, one of our earliest debates was whether to charge for the content. We investigated many scenarios to accomplish this, but in the end the publisher decided that since the pioneers of online newspapering (N.Y. Times, boston.com, and others) were giving their stuff away for free, there was no business logic in us to try charging for our version of the news. That decision was debated at papers around the world over the following year or two, and everyone came to the same conclusion. News had to be free and advertising alone would have to pay the bills – for better or, as it turns out, for worse.
Skip ahead to today and you have Google, Yahoo!, and many other online sources swiping and scraping the news from newspapers and TV outlets, posting it for free, and making money off the advertising they sell with it. And you have the Monsters and the craigslists of the online world chomping away at available local advertising. The result? The Rocky Mountain News shuts down because it can’t make as much money as it needs to spend. And the Rocky wasn’t alone as it teetered on the edge of closure.
Flash forward to the near future and you have a scenario where many newspapers across the country will have lost the fight against free news online and no ad support. As they close, the pool of credible news-gathering operations shrinks and an ugly question of the industry’s role as government and business watchdog looms. (That’s a topic for another day, though it has bearing here, for sure.) In this future scenario, the news audience is left mostly with second-rate news outlets and self-appointed voices of varying quality being the primary sources of “information” on everything from politics to sports to the arts. That may amount to a lot of info, but it’s not necessarily good info. (Cue the Wikipedia debate here.)
While greater minds than mine have considered this, here is where I think news will go in the not-too-distant future: One or more online “news stores” will open that sell high-quality news content in whatever format or frequency you want it and in whatever size allotments you like. Just like online supermarkets today, you can shop the shelves on a daily basis or subscribe to a regular bundle in a “my news” model. Love everything about the Red Sox and nothing else? Load up your cart. Want a variety pack – say, the Herald for Sox stats, the Boston Globe for City Hall coverage, the Brookline TAB for hometown info, the Times of London for theater reviews, the Jerusalem Post for updates on the war, etc. – then pick and choose the news you care about. When you’re ready to check out or subscribe, you pay a few cents or more for each item and your news package is delivered when, when, and how you want it.
At the core of this scheme are two key points: someone with legit credentials (and a paycheck) has to generate the news you buy, and the branding and promotion of those content sources will become critical to the equation. Just as you go to the supermarket now and choose between several different brands of butter or frozen pizza based on your taste and quality preferences, so too will you be able to visit the open market of paid online news and make your choices based on the merits of different suppliers. And while you might no longer subscribe to just one newspaper, you will reward your preferred news sources with your micropayments and thus contribute to the health and vibrancy of the market-driven news industry of the 21st century.
Will this system work? How long will it take to get there? I can’t say. Certainly many hurdles need to be overcome, not the least of which is getting a critical mass of news sources to demand payment for their content (watch Newsday for pending developments on this front), and creating the entity or entities that operate the news stores. And then there’s the reality that today’s news audience is technologically fragmented – from print-product holdouts to those with the geekiest gizmos. But these are details to be resolved over time.
So today, while I shed a tear for the Rocky, I see opportunity and exciting possibilities on the horizon. Getting there won’t be easy, or a smooth ride. But get there we will.