As it currently stands, Journalism is most equatable to a middle-schooler; trying on new styles and going through fazes until it finds one that works. Currently, we are stuck in something of an emo-phase -- it just isn't doesn't feel right.
Various institutions are trying different methods to adapt to the digital age, most of which fall short of delivering the same customer satisfaction that was guaranteed by print in the industry's heyday. However, the real problem with internet news is not general reception. More American's are getting their news online every day. The problem, as always, is monetary.
As Ken Doctor writes in his book Newenomics, the economic concept of scarcity is eliminated by the web. Supply is infinite in the virtual world, causing the equilibrium price of the digital advertising market to plummet. Whereas in a print newspapers, advertisements cost dollars, on the internet, advertising costs pennies.
There are ways to increase the price of a digital advertisement, but none of which could levy the same revenues brought in by print advertising. An add at the header of a web page which expands when the user hovers his cursor over it, for example, is worth more than adds in the margins of the page. Of course, at this point the difference is finicky, as we are debating the difference between 80 and 90 cents.
Therefore, our course of action moving forward could take one of two paths, each of which would drastically alter the business side of journalism. As Journalists, we must either (a) shake our dependency on advertising revenue or (b) drastically reduce overheads.
As an internet news source, overheads are already at a minimum. Pushed to max efficiency, such an organization does not require a newsroom, any supplies or even an office. Newsroom meetings can be done through group Skype (a good office would offer a bulk deal on the premium package which allows such a service, however, one could make the employees pay for it themselves. This, however, is not good business). Each employee could reasonably be expected to supply their own computer, as any aspiring journalist should already have one. Distribution and manufacturing costs are obsolete. The only real expenditures would be employee salaries, web design and the measly cost of a domain name.
Shaking journalism's dependency on add revenue would require a drastic re-imagination of business which neither I, nor anyone that I know of in the field, has yet to establish. Perhaps copyright law should be considered.
Insomuch as the format of internet news, some paradigms of the internet thus far must be examined. From the success of organizations such as Wikipedia and Google, it can be inferred that the tendency of internet users is to prefer platforms from which all information can be accessed. Wikipedia has not been monetarily successful because they are open source, non-profit, and morally opposed to adds. Therefore, they have no choice but to survive off of donations, and the cost of hosting all that information is quite large.
Google, on the other hand, presents a very interesting business model. Websites pay large premiums for the right to be on the first page of search results, Wikipedia among them. This platform could be utilized by an enterprise which exists not to create the news, but to bring it to the user in an accessible way, with all possible information in its database, the higher paying source displayed more prevalently. Copyright law could insure a mutually beneficial relationship between the news sources and the provider, with the sources being paid for their rights to display the information on the provider's website. Let it be known, that I copyright my ideas. If anyone steals them, I will hunt and kill -- literally kill -- as I will then have nothing to lose.
Some mediums have already tried a similar approach to News. Google currents, for example, is a freeware format that pays various news sources for the rights to upload their content into an e-reader version. The user can then subscribe to his choice of sources, and view them at his pleasure through the Currents platform. Google receives a cut of whatever advertising appeared in the original print source, as it is displayed again on the Currents platform in digital. This is a good idea, however, I do not know how successful it has been for Google.
The Boston Globe's e-reader version is a good example of what not to do. Instead of the aesthetically pleasing Currents model, The Globe uploads the exact format of it's print paper to the internet. Though, the option exists to switch to a model analogous to the Currents one, the default is looking at a Newspaper on your computer screen. It is not a user friendly platform. Users must zoom in to read specific articles and constantly scroll back and forth while reading as the full article will not fit within the screen of a portable device. This being the default display, it is my belief that it turns more customers away by inconvenience than it attracts by it's inherent usefulness.
The New York Times has tried an incentive based program for their internet edition; offering the first ten articles free of charge before one must subscribe to continue to use the service. My problem with this method is two-fold. Firstly, it is easy to circumnavigate. Say a person owns a smartphone, tablet and computer. If they are careful to visit the Times' internet edition using each device from a different IP address, then their number of free reads has tripled from 10 to 30. Or, if the user is tech-savvy, he could easily download an IP scrambler, or a TOR browser, and have access to as many free reads as he desires.
Secondly, it just doesn't sit right with me. I believe in a free and open source internet. Naturally, some services require a premium, but once information is regulated in any form it is a slippery slope to censorship, and then propaganda. Though I'm sure I sound extremist, I stand by my beliefs. The internet is miraculous because it is accessible to anyone, anywhere, with a computer and a router. It should stay this way. If services start to unanimously become privatized, one cannot be sure that the medium itself will not follow the same route. One should be especially wearisome when considering the federal government's recent attempts to regulate the free-internet via laws such as CISPA and the actions of the NSA.
By a risk of non compus mentis, this is what I mean: now is the time in history in which it makes sense that the government would tighten it's hold on the powerful new invention of the internet. Journalism, which functions best when it is absolutely free, must be wary of this fact, as the future of our industry lies in absolute freedom on the net. We must remember that good guys don't always win, and that civil liberties are not as old as time. Totalitarianism is still a statistical norm, considering the scope of history and the many countries that exist today which have not adapted to the free-world. We are at a turning point at which we may either use the invention of the internet to it's fullest potential, or lose it to the marked insanity of oligarchical oppression.
No comments:
Post a Comment