The newspaper industry is under a tremendous amount of pressure right now, both in terms of cyclical changes — the recession and its direct impact on ad revenues — and longer term challenges such as declining circulation which, while exacerbated by the Internet, was actually a trend that began prior to the Web. Some of this hard news is balanced by good news, such as newspaper companies Web-aided expanding audience and reach, though this has yet to be fully monitized. So it’s no surprise that we’re looking to boost revenues, and in some cases, questioning the wisdom of the free-to-readers, ad-supported model newspaper Web sites have been aiming toward. It’s too complex an issue to solve in this short blog post (ah, wouldn’t that attempt be hubris!), and the solution likely lies in a yet-to-be-negotiated detente between an ad model and certain types of paid content utilizing multiple delivery channels. But in the meantime I wanted to note this piece from Ad Age, which struck me as interesting in that it feels contrarian after all the buzz the “secret” industry paywall meetings and the seeming groundswell of sentiment toward returning to paid sites have been getting.
Photo by Ray via Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/rayphua/
Doesn’t seem long ago that those arguing for the pay wall were wearing the contrarian mantle. It’s also interesting from a cultural, literary and linguistic perspective in that it picks up on a term drawn from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged and used recently and widely in reference to a segment of the American population that feels it is being unfairly asked to pay for what it perceives to be other peoples’ free rides. If the analogy were borne out, would that make Google the federal government and the newspaper industry the angry taxpayer?
Anyhow, the Ad Age piece takes the side of the argument that that ‘Going Galt‘ (paywalling off content, in this context) is not a good solution for newspapers – that it would in fact backfire. Ken Doctor, from Outsell, is quoted saying: “If you’re those companies [CNN, Huffington Post, etc.], you say, ‘This is our chance to finish those guys off.’ CNN’s not going to put up any pay wall. They don’t need to.” Interesting, but to be entirely true doesn’t it need assume newspapers they don’t produce anything of value that’s unique enough to their markets so that people would miss it enough to pay for it? Doesn’t seem logical, at least in the case of smaller local newspapers (so many of these debates seem to focus exclusively on the economics of big newspaper chains and major metros).
In fact, some of the things Doctor suggests later in the piece that might be charged for seem to be the stock and trade of local newspapers – community information and reports not available anywhere else.
So should newspapers “Go Galt?” I don’t think so – mostly because in recalling my reading Ayn Rand as a high school senior, I don’t think the analogy is entirely appropriate. Should journalists and other folks who work in newspapers get paid for their work. Absolutely, yes. Should readers pay for content directly or by agreeing to view ads in exchange for what they read? Better, more complex question. And not one Ayn Rand is likely to answer for us…
Tags: Ayn Rand, newspapers, paid content
