May 09
13
Some Thoughts On The Newspaper Model
Continuing the thoughts noted earlier by myself and Tom about Rupert Murdoch's announcement – along with others (funny about that) – to make his online content paid for:
It used to be that you would buy a newspaper because you wanted to get a wrap up of the events of the last 24 hours. It was a view through a lens constructed by an exterior person who (presumably) also represented the view of the publisher.
Now the ever increasingly way that people consume media is through a mix of technologies: links from websites that aggregate stories, links from tweets, feeds from Google Alerts, and others.
The point is that regardless of whether content is free or is paid for the overriding influence of the newspaper proprietor on what we think has been changed. It hasn't been canceled out by any means, but it has absolutely been diminished.
What Mr Murdoch wants is that influence. If he can influence enough people he can have power over who gets elected. If he has power over who gets elected, he is an emperor of modern times. He has been this for some years, and I imagine, that like most people who have over time constructed their own success he sees that success as being a status quo that should remain the same. But I would argue that all things in life are dynamically subject to change, and none more so than the distribution and consumption of digital material – whatever that may be.
So, with that in mind consider two new items on the web that are relevant to the proposition:
One is from Poynter on the subject of charging for content. Poynter is a forum in which media is discussed so note that there is no quotation from the article here, just the comments from Poynter subscribers. The general feeling is that the media executive in question is several years out of touch with what is really happening.
And then there is the story that David Geffen is making moves to acquire a controlling stake in the New York Times.
The fundamental and continuing issue here is this ability to influence thought within a community. We now live in a global media village. We all want to know what Obama said today. We all want to know what gaffes Gordon Brown made in promising one thing and delivering another. Because these things influence each of our lives.
Some media proprietors think beyond the dollars and cents of the balance sheet to the issues of whether they will be able to continue to be emperors of the world. And they see Google as the greatest threat to their continuity in that role.
The issues of whether content is paid for or not by a consumer has its place in the discussion because this is something that, presented in the right way, can influence the stock analysts that make the buy/sell recommendations. The equation is complex but is almost certainly, at some point, only about ego.