3 ms·

This is so dumb I double-checked to make sure this article wasn't a hoax. Here's the situation: news-gathering companies have looked at the economics of the si

by seldo 17y ago

This is so dumb I double-checked to make sure this article wasn't a hoax. Here's the situation: news-gathering companies have looked at the economics of the situation and realized that either people need to start paying for news, or 95% of news-gathering companies will die. They've taken this to mean "and so people will inevitably start paying for content", but the actual conclusion should be "inevitably 95% of news gathering companies will die". Radically wider distribution via the Internet has rendered the hugely redundant newspaper business (one newspaper for every town? Really?) obsolete. Even video producers are not immune (how many live news feeds do I need, exactly? 20? 10?). Murdoch and co. are just dinosaurs refusing to acknowledge that the light in the sky is a comet.

run4yourlives 17y ago
The real silly thing is that there is a market for in-depth news analysis. The problem is that they've chosen not to serve this market, and as they race to the bottom they only now realize that they can't compete with 6 billion potential eyewitness reporters working for free. They gambled and lost. Of course, just like the car companies I somehow get the feeling that somehow I'll have to pay for their strategic mistakes.
ubernostrum 17y ago
Actually, you don't quite have it right. You can be perfectly solvent (and even profitable) as a news company without charging for access to your content. The problem most such companies are facing is that they think basic laws of economics shouldn't apply to them. The entire network of printing presses, press operators, print designers, distributors, delivery people -- that's all overhead. And now it's possible to be a news organization without that overhead. Thus, competitors can deliver the "product" with less overhead than the established companies, and hence at a lower price. Thus, companies which keep all that overhead will be driven out of business. The companies which throw all that stuff overboard will have a chance of staying competitive (and thus staying in business).

by seldo 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago

The real silly thing is that there is a market for in-depth news analysis. The problem is that they've chosen not to serve this market, and as they race to the bottom they only now realize that they can't compete with 6 billion potential eyewitness reporters working for free. They gambled and lost. Of course, just like the car companies I somehow get the feeling that somehow I'll have to pay for their strategic mistakes.

ubernostrum 17y ago

Actually, you don't quite have it right. You can be perfectly solvent (and even profitable) as a news company without charging for access to your content. The problem most such companies are facing is that they think basic laws of economics shouldn't apply to them. The entire network of printing presses, press operators, print designers, distributors, delivery people -- that's all overhead. And now it's possible to be a news organization without that overhead. Thus, competitors can deliver the "product" with less overhead than the established companies, and hence at a lower price. Thus, companies which keep all that overhead will be driven out of business. The companies which throw all that stuff overboard will have a chance of staying competitive (and thus staying in business).