3 ms·

"the open Internet" in theory should be good for local newspapers because it enables fast easy(ish) efficient publishing but the fact that it also enables fast

"the open Internet" in theory should be good for local newspapers because it enables fast easy(ish) efficient publishing but the fact that it also enables fast easy efficient copying kills existing models of monetization. The fundamental problem is that copying digital media is so easy that it breaks the intuitive publishing model reliant on physical possession of any media inherently acting as license to access that media.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Right—I think there are two chief problems: 1) There is no longer a business model that can support strong local media. It's completely gone, and there doesn't seem to be any replacement or substitute coming from "natural" market action in the current environment. 2) The rage-algorithms and radicalization-rabbit-holes of social media giants have so completely captured everyone's attention that it's not clear anyone would read local reporting, anyway, even if it could somehow get funding. Unless it could serve the rage-algorithms and radicalization-rabbit-holes. Though perhaps at least the most shocking stories would get picked up more widely and be noticed.
- shuntress 4y ago
  Sort of. What I am saying is that the ease with which digital media can be copied and distributed is the fundamental problem. Prior to the free open Internet and widespread access to digital media, physically producing and distributing the actual newspaper was the hard part. The time and difficulty of physically printing and delivering the actual paper media automatically covers for all the effort that goes in to producing the content of that media. Anyone who would want to steal that content still had to do the actual hard part (physical production and delivery of the paper media). Now though, with the free open Internet, production and distribution of the physical media (beeps, boops, zeros, and ones) is ludicrously cheap and easy. The content is now not only the most valuable part of the deal it is also easier than ever to steal.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    There was also a forced bundle and local monopoly. The person with an apartment to rent out probably didn’t especially want to pay for the reporter covering the local town zoning board meetings. But they didn’t have much choice but to take out a classified as.
    - shuntress 4y ago
      You are conflating separate concerns. Advertising is a whole different ball game. Though, to belabor this metaphor, it is played in the same arena. As far as I am aware, newspapers did not typically have de jure monopolies. Presumably, you are thinking of telecoms as a comparison. But an apparent de facto monopoly could easily arise based on the previously mentioned physical constraints for actually handling paper media. It only makes sense to send the trucks so far. But in populated areas customers could easily have access to multiple different papers. Edit: as far as the "forced bundle" is concerned, that AGAIN comes back to the inherent difficulty of producing and distributing paper media relative to the content contained on that media. It's pretty easy to include a simple report of the zoning board meeting in the content you are already printing and distributing but it doesn't make sense to run a separate production line to produce a separate version of the paper.
Viliam1234 4y ago
Has anyone tried this model of monetization: The articles are free online, but only the paying customers can write comments below them (that anyone can read)? You could of course link the articles from elsewhere and have a discussion there, but then your comments would not appear under the original article.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Right—I think there are two chief problems: 1) There is no longer a business model that can support strong local media. It's completely gone, and there doesn't seem to be any replacement or substitute coming from "natural" market action in the current environment. 2) The rage-algorithms and radicalization-rabbit-holes of social media giants have so completely captured everyone's attention that it's not clear anyone would read local reporting, anyway, even if it could somehow get funding. Unless it could serve the rage-algorithms and radicalization-rabbit-holes. Though perhaps at least the most shocking stories would get picked up more widely and be noticed.

shuntress 4y ago
Sort of. What I am saying is that the ease with which digital media can be copied and distributed is the fundamental problem. Prior to the free open Internet and widespread access to digital media, physically producing and distributing the actual newspaper was the hard part. The time and difficulty of physically printing and delivering the actual paper media automatically covers for all the effort that goes in to producing the content of that media. Anyone who would want to steal that content still had to do the actual hard part (physical production and delivery of the paper media). Now though, with the free open Internet, production and distribution of the physical media (beeps, boops, zeros, and ones) is ludicrously cheap and easy. The content is now not only the most valuable part of the deal it is also easier than ever to steal.
- ghaff 4y ago
  There was also a forced bundle and local monopoly. The person with an apartment to rent out probably didn’t especially want to pay for the reporter covering the local town zoning board meetings. But they didn’t have much choice but to take out a classified as.
  - shuntress 4y ago
    You are conflating separate concerns. Advertising is a whole different ball game. Though, to belabor this metaphor, it is played in the same arena. As far as I am aware, newspapers did not typically have de jure monopolies. Presumably, you are thinking of telecoms as a comparison. But an apparent de facto monopoly could easily arise based on the previously mentioned physical constraints for actually handling paper media. It only makes sense to send the trucks so far. But in populated areas customers could easily have access to multiple different papers. Edit: as far as the "forced bundle" is concerned, that AGAIN comes back to the inherent difficulty of producing and distributing paper media relative to the content contained on that media. It's pretty easy to include a simple report of the zoning board meeting in the content you are already printing and distributing but it doesn't make sense to run a separate production line to produce a separate version of the paper.

Viliam1234 4y ago

Has anyone tried this model of monetization: The articles are free online, but only the paying customers can write comments below them (that anyone can read)? You could of course link the articles from elsewhere and have a discussion there, but then your comments would not appear under the original article.