When journalists become beggars
In times of crisis, media executives reevaluate the decisions they made in the past. If they want to sell journalism today, it’s like going out to beg.
Cover pictures of Time magazine set the agenda. "How you can save your newspaper" was the headline of the February 16 issue. A modest proposal, the subline read. Graphically illustrated by a fish wrapped in the New York Times. Walter Issacson, President of the Aspen Institute and former Managing Director of Time magazine, is self-critical of the development of the media industry: "We made a mistake when we put everything online for free!"
When financial systems collapse like houses of cards, the value creation models of the media industry must also be reconsidered. The thesis that everything must be available for free on the Internet is now calling the financing of journalism into question. Isaacon recapitulates the history of the relationship between the media and the Internet. At the beginning of the 1990s, users still paid for the time they spent online. Good content was valuable back then because it extended the time spent online. Then the millions in advertising were tempting. In the current crisis, however, publishers have to realize that only the server and search engine operators are making money. In his text, Isaacson proposes microbilling for content. Sophisticated systems should make it possible to pay for the individual articles read.
The "modest" proposal is not addressed to the publishers, but to the readership! This almost obsequious attitude makes the proposal a beggar's walk. However, the timing is ideal. When a bastion of financial and economic power is falling every day, yesterday's certainties can be called into question without losing face. The dramatic situation of newspapers and journalists in the USA encourages creativity for the development of alternative production and financing systems. Petitions are a matter of course. If the banks and the automotive industry are only begging for billions in double and triple digits, then readers can also be asked for a few cents for the collection in favor of journalism.
Of course, the response to Isaacson's suggestion was not long in coming. Those for whom there is nothing more evil on the Internet than having to pay for content can think of nothing but gloating about the dying dinosaurs. They are happy to be marketed to, pay for their latest computer and server access fees without batting an eyelid. After all, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, expressed his wish that Google could save the newspapers in an interview with CNNMoney.com in January. The demand for their services is high, he notes, but their business model no longer works. Quite immodestly, he notes that Google could buy up the media companies. However, this would not solve the problem. That is why Google is relying on the "merge without merging" principle by integrating the web systems of both sides. However, investing money directly in the media companies is out of the question for him. Schmidt: "We don't mix philanthropy with business. We are in the advertising business!" After all, it would be a tragedy for Eric Schmidt if journalism were to disappear due to economic problems. And bloggers would not be able to replace it: However, begging Google won't do the newspaper industry any good. Schmidt: "Google is careful with its money. We only write big checks when we have a great strategy."
That leaves a few financially strong investors who are attracted to the media adventure to go begging. However, their commitment is similar to that of patrons from earlier times. In France, President Sarkozy is supporting the media with a series of measures. At the same time, he is taking them by the hand. The readership is also being mobilized less and less through the classic bartering of performance for a reasonable price, but rather in donation organizations for journalism. There is a great deal of creativity in this regard: the Kachingle model, for example, enables voluntary contributions to be paid for media content that appeals to readers. What they all have in common is that the contribution is an act of mercy. The feeling of shame must be overcome in order to go begging. In return, the donor can be proud of their altruistic willingness to help.
Is this the future of paid journalism? On the one hand, dependence on the favor of advertising, on the other on the mercy of donors? And what will journalism look like if it becomes one-sidedly dependent? Thinking about it this way, the old model of financing via both the user and the advertising market offers an interesting balance of power. New forms and payment systems are constantly being developed for advertising. This should actually also be possible for journalistic content. With his modest proposal, Walter Isaacson has challenged the current dogma that online content should be free. Fair and solid financing models are needed! In recent months, we have learned once again that those who follow false promises of happiness and only bet on one card will sooner or later become beggars!
When financial systems collapse like houses of cards, the value creation models of the media industry must also be reconsidered. The thesis that everything must be available for free on the Internet is now calling the financing of journalism into question. Isaacon recapitulates the history of the relationship between the media and the Internet. At the beginning of the 1990s, users still paid for the time they spent online. Good content was valuable back then because it extended the time spent online. Then the millions in advertising were tempting. In the current crisis, however, publishers have to realize that only the server and search engine operators are making money. In his text, Isaacson proposes microbilling for content. Sophisticated systems should make it possible to pay for the individual articles read.
The "modest" proposal is not addressed to the publishers, but to the readership! This almost obsequious attitude makes the proposal a beggar's walk. However, the timing is ideal. When a bastion of financial and economic power is falling every day, yesterday's certainties can be called into question without losing face. The dramatic situation of newspapers and journalists in the USA encourages creativity for the development of alternative production and financing systems. Petitions are a matter of course. If the banks and the automotive industry are only begging for billions in double and triple digits, then readers can also be asked for a few cents for the collection in favor of journalism.
Of course, the response to Isaacson's suggestion was not long in coming. Those for whom there is nothing more evil on the Internet than having to pay for content can think of nothing but gloating about the dying dinosaurs. They are happy to be marketed to, pay for their latest computer and server access fees without batting an eyelid. After all, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, expressed his wish that Google could save the newspapers in an interview with CNNMoney.com in January. The demand for their services is high, he notes, but their business model no longer works. Quite immodestly, he notes that Google could buy up the media companies. However, this would not solve the problem. That is why Google is relying on the "merge without merging" principle by integrating the web systems of both sides. However, investing money directly in the media companies is out of the question for him. Schmidt: "We don't mix philanthropy with business. We are in the advertising business!" After all, it would be a tragedy for Eric Schmidt if journalism were to disappear due to economic problems. And bloggers would not be able to replace it: However, begging Google won't do the newspaper industry any good. Schmidt: "Google is careful with its money. We only write big checks when we have a great strategy."
That leaves a few financially strong investors who are attracted to the media adventure to go begging. However, their commitment is similar to that of patrons from earlier times. In France, President Sarkozy is supporting the media with a series of measures. At the same time, he is taking them by the hand. The readership is also being mobilized less and less through the classic bartering of performance for a reasonable price, but rather in donation organizations for journalism. There is a great deal of creativity in this regard: the Kachingle model, for example, enables voluntary contributions to be paid for media content that appeals to readers. What they all have in common is that the contribution is an act of mercy. The feeling of shame must be overcome in order to go begging. In return, the donor can be proud of their altruistic willingness to help.
Is this the future of paid journalism? On the one hand, dependence on the favor of advertising, on the other on the mercy of donors? And what will journalism look like if it becomes one-sidedly dependent? Thinking about it this way, the old model of financing via both the user and the advertising market offers an interesting balance of power. New forms and payment systems are constantly being developed for advertising. This should actually also be possible for journalistic content. With his modest proposal, Walter Isaacson has challenged the current dogma that online content should be free. Fair and solid financing models are needed! In recent months, we have learned once again that those who follow false promises of happiness and only bet on one card will sooner or later become beggars!
