The laughing third of the free news

Anyone who wants to get serious and in-depth information about what's happening in their own country can do so around the clock, 365 days a year, conveniently and free of charge: it won't cost them a cent.

Today, in the era of the internet, this is the journalistic reality. We are at an important crossroads: either the print media leave the era of free news behind them, or they dig their own grave. All accessible and available statistics tell us that the economic model of free news in return for clicks from readers, which leads to more advertising, is doomed to failure.

The magazine Schweizer Journalist (June/July 2017 issue) examined the development of advertising revenue in Switzerland from 2000 to 2016, the period in which the internet grew up. Overall, print media revenues have fallen from CHF 3 billion to less than CHF 1.3 billion. In the case of traditional newspapers, revenue fell from 2.2 billion to less than one billion. In contrast, online media revenues rose from 30 million francs in 2000 to 1.1 billion francs in 2016. But watch out, writes the newspaper: "In the same period, online advertising went up like a rocket. It's a double whammy for the publishing houses. The big money is not flowing into their pockets, but into those of Google and Facebook."

So it is the big news platforms, on which publishers and journalists post information free of charge every day, that profit from the advertising generated by reader clicks. This is a double slap in the face. The upward curve of online advertising will soon cross the downward curve of advertising in the print media, but the laughing third parties are Google and the social networks with their open arms policy.

So we have to watch as newspaper publishers and journalists play into the hands of Google, Facebook and Twitter. The sooner we stop this blood donation, the better for the print media. The longer we wait, the worse it will get. We've already written about it here: since the digitalization of the economy (which is a huge step forward, no question!), no industry has yet come up with the idea of giving away their products. With one exception: the print media. Before the Internet, newspapers were able to get paid for their product, the news. Strangely enough, with the advent of the Internet, they started to give it away. In 20 years' time, scientists will be studying and analyzing this incredible development. We can only hope that these studies can still be published in lively and healthy newspapers.

Nobody finds clothes, books, CDs, wine, travel, cars or concerts on the Internet for nothing. But everyone finds news for nothing. That's unbelievable, but true. Many newspapers will now say: No, we only give away the first 10, 15 or 20 news items, from then on readers have to pay. That's true. But they are obviously forgetting the system effect: I take 10 good, serious, in-depth articles from the Washington Post for free, then another 15 free articles from the New York Times, finally I take another 20 somewhat lighter ones from USA Today, and I have complete all-round information without spending a single tired dollar. The real dilemma facing publishers and journalists today is not "paper or web" but "free or paid", whether on paper or on the web.

A few years ago, an American study (in the Baltimore metropolitan region in Maryland) showed that 95 percent of the information intended for the local population on the web consisted of traditional media, namely newspapers, local television and local radio (Pew Research Center Journalism & Media, "How News Happens", January 2010). If newspapers went on strike for a week, people would no longer have any information: the web does not produce its own news, but uses and reuses information from newspapers, local television and radio. Blogs, Internet portals and other online offerings produce only a tiny fraction of the news themselves. In reality, they limit themselves to copying (or actually stealing) the information produced by newspapers. In addition, the study showed that third-party news is still being copied relatively carelessly. In short, they are sloppy. Google, Facebook and Twitter do not have editorial teams with experts who research information, conduct interviews and write reports: Google, Facebook and Twitter use information, interviews and reports that journalists put online, for nothing in return.

When I see journalists posting their articles or interviews on Facebook or Twitter and making them accessible to everyone, I would like to say to them: The hours you spent writing this article, which you are now giving to your friends on FB and your followers on Twitter, should actually be deducted from your salary. Because this journalist is single-handedly destroying the economic value of his or her work. And therefore, logically, he or she should not be paid for it.

Recently, the Italian newspaper La Stampa (which is celebrating its 150th birthday this year) published an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Brazilian newspaper O Globo. In it, he explains that his newspaper "charges for five or more articles read on its website". When asked whether this works, he replies: "You still have to work on it. People spend their money on entertainment, on sport and movies, but they are not yet prepared to pay for news." Sure, because who has accustomed the readership to not spending money on information? Perhaps those who have been giving away free information on the Internet for 15 or 20 years?

Fabio Pontiggia is editor-in-chief of Corriere del Ticino.