We are a spoiled bunch. With just the punch of the enter button on your keyboard you are seconds away from the answer to any question you may have. How much does it cost to buy a condo in Long Island City? How many calories are in kumquats? What the heck is ROI? Online users are accustomed to unlimited access to free information on the web. With social networking sites like Twitter, it is possible to get updates on the latest news events, in 140 characters or less. This is a small part of the reason why the New York Times’ new business plan is causing such a stir. The New York Times plans to charge its most loyal readers, readers who will not doubt go over the set amount of free articles each month. Don’t worry just yet; the plan won’t kick in until 2011.
From a purely business standpoint it makes sense that a newspaper of the Times’ size would charge people to read its content, but as we know, the online world works differently than the print world. If you want the print version sent to your door everyday, you expect to pay for it; however if you want to read the online version every morning before you check your email, you expect it to be free. I mean why not? Most everything else is free online.
The prevalent business model for online media has generally been to offer free content to readers and to rely on advertising dollars in order to stay afloat. This has put some strain on well-established and new publications alike. Staff writers get cut and freelance writers make less money, hence the reason most writers are turning to unconventional methods to support themselves. There is no doubt that media is changing, as it has many times before, people just have to figure out a way to change with it. The question is, how do we do it?
While publications are suffering in general, The New York Times is of course very different than your small local paper or your daily blog reads. It is much more costly to run such a huge operation, with reporters all over the world, as well as writers, editors, line editors, deliverymen, and distributors. As Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research states, Google ads can’t pay for everything:
The notion that the enormous cost of real news-gathering might be supported by the ad load of display advertising down the side of the page, or by the revenue share from having a Google search box in the corner of the page, or even by a 15-second teaser from Geico prior to a news clip, is idiotic on its face.
He is right. It is crazy to think that the high cost of maintaining such an operation can be covered by advertising, and if it can’t, how else can it support its daily operation? David Firestone, a deputy national news editor elaborates this point. “As painful as it will be at the beginning, we have to get rid of the notion that high-quality news comes free.”
The New York Times is worried about many things. Their biggest worry is simply whether or not people are willing to pay for their news. The changes won’t affect the occasional reader who stumbles upon an article after searching Google News, but rather the avid readers of the Times who return day after day. Will these readers turn their back on the publication? Another worry is of course ad dollars. If the paper loses some of its audience, it will inevitably lose some advertising dollars. It is risky, but with revenues down, they have to do something.
Some publications have found success in charging their readers. Cook’s Illustrated charges its readers for unlimited access to their database of recipes. If you check out their website you will notice something very strange. There is absolutely no outside advertising, yet they were able to grow 30% in 2008. This strategy works well for niche markets, but the Times is not for a niche market with its breadth of topics and news stories. The Times will have to find a balance between subscribers and advertising.
Now this begs the question, would you pay for high quality news or other high profile news sources like the New York Times? Sure people may say that they will pay, but when the time comes will they really pay up, or will they be looking elsewhere to get their news fix? Other papers currently use the paywall method, such as the Wall Street Journal and Newsday. The Times has tried to charge its online readers in the past, without much success. From 2005 to 2007 the newspaper started TimesSelect which charged for its editorials and columns. Columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman began to complain about their drop in readership. Friedman noted that reader’s abroad, in particular readers from China and India, stopped reading his content because it became too expensive, especially for a country where $50 is a huge investment.
On a personal level I can relate to both sides of the argument. Out of pure selfishness, I understand the draw of free content. Times are rough and I want as much free information as the next guy. As a writer who has been in contact with many publications that are having a hard time paying its contributors, I understand the importance of paying for high quality content. I also believe that if a product is remarkable, then people will pay for it. You may lose some consumers here and there, but it seems absurd to continue offering free products forever.
One thing that is certain in our information saturated world, industries are changing and little good has come from freaking out. The music industry didn’t gain much from trying to sue every person that downloaded music illegally, and while it’s true that the music industry is struggling, products such as iTunes and Pandora has managed to keep people paying for their music. We can stream free movies online, but that hasn’t stopped people from going to see movies on the big screen (Avatar already topped 500 million in the US). Late night television has suffered in the ratings (such as Conan) because of its ever fickle audience; however other shows (even some non reality shows) have managed to gain large popularity by breaking the mold, such as Fox’s Glee. What companies need to do is figure out new ways to reach consumers and hold their attention, which may be easier said than done, what with all the options we have to chose from. Despite the blogs and new sites popping up, there is still space for a respected and high quality news outlet like the Times, where reporters are at the scene and are expected to exemplify a certain quality of excellence, even though they too make mistakes. I don’t see this type of reporting changing anytime soon.
Image via: paalia
The Strange and Creepy World of Social Media
by Elena on February 19, 2010
These sites have changed the way we market products and ideas, as well as the social interaction of our society, but let’s leave that for the psychologists and sociologists to tackle. What I’m interested in exploring is what happens when you give free reign to millions of tech savvy users with varying interests and different definitions of what they consider fun?
What about the juicy stuff, you know, the creepy, stalker, addictive part of knowing every details about the people you follow? Not everyone is poking friendly pokes and tweeting informative tweets. Don’t get me wrong. I obviously love social media, what with this blog and all, but I still find it utterly fascinating, and a little frightening, the level it can be taken to.
Chat Roulette
Let’s take a look at the social network phenomenon of the week, Chat Roulette. For those unfamiliar, with the program, it is a one-on-one text, webcam, microphone-based, chat service where you can talk to people all over the world. There is a catch of course, or maybe it’s the hook. The site is literally a social game of roulette because you never know who you are going to get. By participating you open yourself to brutal honesty from complete strangers who have the option of pressing the next button when they are tired of looking at you. After you hit that button, you can be talking to a person dressed up as a ninja one minute or someone looking to practice their English the next. Most of the time however you will probably be nexted quickly, or disturbed enough to push the next button yourself. Sam Anderson’s article, The Human Shuffle written for New York Magazine, provides an entertaining look into his experience with Chat Roulette. If you want to get a better idea about this site, this is the article to read. He describes his first experience with Chat Roulette as taking him back to grade-school filled with feelings of social inadequacy (with all that nexting). Anderson also goes into detail about some of the conversations he had, as well as the odd magnetic feeling you get driving you back to the site.
Imagine you sign on only to find this guy…
Despite the site’s terms of service (Chatroulette does not tolerate broadcasting obscene, offending, pornographic material and we will have to block users who violate these rules from using our service) ask anyone who has tried Chat Roulette and they will tell you otherwise. Lots of creepers are on it with the sole intention of getting people to expose themselves or frankly just exposing themselves to you. This brings up worries about child pornography and many other issues that get exacerbated once they enter such social network spaces. This is one more site parents have to be worried about their kids stumbling upon.
Google Latitude
Google Latitude is a feature on Google Maps that allows you find the approximate location of your Gmail friends. When you look at the map you can see your friend’s avatar hovering around their location. It seems friendly enough, allowing your friends to see your whereabouts with the Google Latitude software. It is brilliant really, Google really thinks of everything. The question is, do we really need to pinpoint the locations of our friends and family?
Google is aware of the dangers of location data, which is why they enacted privacy settings into their program. First and foremost you are in charge of who you accept as a friend and you chose the people who can see your whereabouts. You can also hide your location. For many this provides a sense of security. As internet users we have become less anxious about sharing private information about ourselves, but the rule of thumb is that we need to have control about what we share. As for Google Latitude, it’s not like your friends are going to track you down. Plus, there is nothing creepy about knowing who is ‘in the area’ and ‘dropping by’ because you saw their little avatar floating around nearby. Hmm. This brings me to…
Foursquare
I first found out about Foursquare from the Frugal Traveler at the New York Times. The reason Foursquare is relevant to a frugal travel post, is that the site encourages people to explore a neighborhood and “check in” to local restaurants, cafes, museums, etc. The more you frequent a location, the more chances you get to receive prizes and discounts, depending on the location. You even get badges if you unlock new places and the more badges you get, the closer you are to becoming mayor or an explorer. Users can make recommendations and keep others updated on what is hot in their area. Overall the site seems like a great idea for those looking to explore their city, but there is a really big BUT here. Sure it seems harmless BUT what is the consequence of people knowing your every move on such sites like Foursquare and Twitter? Glad you asked…
Please Rob Me
The guys on Please Rob Me sure have a sense of humor. What with listing all those empty homes out there haha. Making us all aware that if we tell everyone where we are at all times, we inadvertently alert them when we aren’t home haha. It’s just too funny… isn’t it? haha… As it turns out, letting everyone know our every move through various social networks, is not only annoying, but also brings up security issues, stalking, theft, etc. Some people full of hubris and irrational fear believe that “it will happen to me,” while others brush it off thinking “that would never happen to me?” Most people fall humbly in between, aware of the risks but not willing to let it rule them. Of course the guys at Please Rob Me didn’t create their site to facilitate burglary, but rather to raise awareness, ever so bluntly, about these privacy issues. They certainly got their point across. So don’t go putting your friend’s personal address on Foursquare in order to get extra points or an online badge.
This last site isn’t creepy or scary in any way. Disappointed? Don’t worry, it’s still peculiar. If you ever wanted to know what people really think about you, brutal honesty, without knowing who or where the opinion comes from, sign up for failin.gs! Why anyone would open themselves up to such candid remarks is beyond me, but some people just want honesty, or the taste of suffering. Failin.gs’ users ask, “What’s wrong with me?” and people can leave anonymous tips answering that very question. Since it is anonymous, it allows for brutal honesty without consequence. If you find any of your friends on failin.gs asking:
“What’s wrong with me?”
You can always anonymously tip them.
“You’re on this site.”
[Disclaimer - Social media networks are not inherently creepy or strange, however the debate of the new ways we interact with people have raised many questions about privacy. It is a choice to participate in such programs and post as much information as we want about ourselves, and there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so. But to everything there is a balance and examining the creepy side is just a bit more interesting.]
Image via: Balakov
{ 0 comments }