Hans in Luck
The buzzword "economization of the media industry" is misleading. Guest commentary by Stephan Russ-Mohl, Head of the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
As at almost every media congress where more than two communication researchers meet, one buzzword recently dominated the discussions at the media symposium in Zurich on the "crisis of the beacons of public communication": the economization of the media business. Superficially, it is about cost-cutting constraints and the rather trivial fact that journalism and the media do not operate in a vacuum, nor solely in the political sphere, but that scarce resources determine the possibilities and limits of publishing.
However, "economization" is more than just a description of the fact that editorial offices also have to learn to calculate and budget and that, as the US media researcher Doug Underwood noted with concern years ago, MBAs are climbing into chief editors' chairs here and there. The term contains a trend statement that obscures more than it illuminates: In the best tradition of the Frankfurt School, it is implied that the ("capitalist") system is subjecting more and more areas of life, and thus also editorial offices, to the dictates of the economic and thus (inflated) profit expectations. As a result, journalism as a "cultural asset" is falling by the wayside: it is increasingly unable to fulfill its journalistic mission of providing citizens with sufficiently verified news, serving democracy and controlling the powerful.
With this way of thinking, the (economic) "system" remains a black box. You can't or don't want to look inside it. At best, the "culprits" are quickly identified: the publishers and those financial investors who - like Sam Zell or David Montgomery - invest in the media industry and devour editorial offices like "locusts" in their untamed greed.
Furthermore, the description is made from the perspective of the journalists, i.e. the news producers - and not the customers. From the perspective of readers, listeners and viewers, it would be more accurate to speak of a de-economization of the media sector: With the exception of the compulsory fee for broadcasting, we have come closer than ever before to the utopias of the '68ers of zero tariffs for essential goods and services: "Everything is free" not only applies to commuter newspapers such as 20 Minuten, .ch and Blick am Abend, but also to a lot of high-quality content on the Internet, from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung to YouTube and the New York Times.
The situation is also paradisiacal for advertisers: Today, they can reach their target groups without too much wastage - unlike Henry Ford, who worried that half of his advertising budget was being thrown out the window, but didn't know which half. If you are looking for a new girlfriend or want to sell your car in a classified ad, you can now even advertise online for free if you are not a trader yourself.
"Economization" - the buzzword thus obscures two elementary changes rather than describing them adequately: Firstly, competition prevails today. Thanks to the Internet, competitors hoping to reach the same audiences and advertising customers are just a mouse click away. Previously, regional and local monopolies and oligopolies had provided many media companies with dream returns for decades, the likes of which were otherwise only achieved in casinos. Increasing advertising revenues also provided generous funding for editorial offices, which in turn lived like maggots in bacon. Secondly, the next generation has already become accustomed to the idea that news "costs nothing". Zero willingness to pay, which also tends to indicate de-economization. Newspaper publishers are currently like Hans in Luck - they are losing one source of income after another.
However, this trend is not only disastrous for publishers, but also for society - journalistic quality and independence cannot be had for free. It's five to twelve: if we want to prevent Google, Microsoft and the public service broadcasters from being the only information providers left, politicians must create a regulatory framework that enables fair competition between public and private media companies. So far, it has only shown that it is hopelessly overburdened with this task. The state has neither prevented media cartels nor corrected market failures. But the state is ultimately us, the citizens - and if we continue to want "everything for free", then we may all end up like Hans in Luck. High-quality, independent journalism costs money - and if it can no longer be financed indirectly through advertising, we will have to pay for it directly, whether at the newsstand, online with micro-payments or through taxes similar to fees. This has a lot to do with economics - but little to do with "economization".
However, "economization" is more than just a description of the fact that editorial offices also have to learn to calculate and budget and that, as the US media researcher Doug Underwood noted with concern years ago, MBAs are climbing into chief editors' chairs here and there. The term contains a trend statement that obscures more than it illuminates: In the best tradition of the Frankfurt School, it is implied that the ("capitalist") system is subjecting more and more areas of life, and thus also editorial offices, to the dictates of the economic and thus (inflated) profit expectations. As a result, journalism as a "cultural asset" is falling by the wayside: it is increasingly unable to fulfill its journalistic mission of providing citizens with sufficiently verified news, serving democracy and controlling the powerful.
With this way of thinking, the (economic) "system" remains a black box. You can't or don't want to look inside it. At best, the "culprits" are quickly identified: the publishers and those financial investors who - like Sam Zell or David Montgomery - invest in the media industry and devour editorial offices like "locusts" in their untamed greed.
Furthermore, the description is made from the perspective of the journalists, i.e. the news producers - and not the customers. From the perspective of readers, listeners and viewers, it would be more accurate to speak of a de-economization of the media sector: With the exception of the compulsory fee for broadcasting, we have come closer than ever before to the utopias of the '68ers of zero tariffs for essential goods and services: "Everything is free" not only applies to commuter newspapers such as 20 Minuten, .ch and Blick am Abend, but also to a lot of high-quality content on the Internet, from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung to YouTube and the New York Times.
The situation is also paradisiacal for advertisers: Today, they can reach their target groups without too much wastage - unlike Henry Ford, who worried that half of his advertising budget was being thrown out the window, but didn't know which half. If you are looking for a new girlfriend or want to sell your car in a classified ad, you can now even advertise online for free if you are not a trader yourself.
"Economization" - the buzzword thus obscures two elementary changes rather than describing them adequately: Firstly, competition prevails today. Thanks to the Internet, competitors hoping to reach the same audiences and advertising customers are just a mouse click away. Previously, regional and local monopolies and oligopolies had provided many media companies with dream returns for decades, the likes of which were otherwise only achieved in casinos. Increasing advertising revenues also provided generous funding for editorial offices, which in turn lived like maggots in bacon. Secondly, the next generation has already become accustomed to the idea that news "costs nothing". Zero willingness to pay, which also tends to indicate de-economization. Newspaper publishers are currently like Hans in Luck - they are losing one source of income after another.
However, this trend is not only disastrous for publishers, but also for society - journalistic quality and independence cannot be had for free. It's five to twelve: if we want to prevent Google, Microsoft and the public service broadcasters from being the only information providers left, politicians must create a regulatory framework that enables fair competition between public and private media companies. So far, it has only shown that it is hopelessly overburdened with this task. The state has neither prevented media cartels nor corrected market failures. But the state is ultimately us, the citizens - and if we continue to want "everything for free", then we may all end up like Hans in Luck. High-quality, independent journalism costs money - and if it can no longer be financed indirectly through advertising, we will have to pay for it directly, whether at the newsstand, online with micro-payments or through taxes similar to fees. This has a lot to do with economics - but little to do with "economization".
