4 ms·

I and two others are working on a third solution to this, one that we think can meet everyone's needs. News consumers now expect to be able to customize their

I and two others are working on a third solution to this, one that we think can meet everyone's needs. News consumers now expect to be able to customize their news. Why sit and read a newspaper, full of items that someone else picked for you, when you can read a news feed that you've tailored specifically to your interests? News publishers are now looking for ways to get their news directly to the consumer, cutting out the freeloaders along the ways. They're starting to die off and hit serious financial problems, and they're eager for a solution. News producers are looking for a way to be a well-paid journalist without having to restrict themselves to a single publication. Blogging has become more lucrative for a lot of people than if they had become a columnist, even a syndicated one. At the same time, news consumers also don't want to be stuck with the stuff that news producers think is important, filtered through the news publishers and their biases. And finally, advertisers are starting to get uncomfortable. I was among the first to predict the dot-com bust, back when people thought I was crazy; I was among the first to predict the housing bust, back when the realtors I knew all thought I was crazy; I think the advertising market is next. It's already starting to get shaky; I think in the next two years, the bottom is going to fall out of advertising. The indicators are all there: it's a heavily saturated market, it isn't innovating well, audiences are developing not just software-based filters but mental ones as well. The advantage to running a full-page ad in a magazine was a guaranteed audience, and if you made it compelling enough, and glossy enough, you could get someone to look at it for a moment before they turned to the next page. As print media starts to stumble, if you're an advertiser, now you're looking at having to push smaller ads to lots of different outlets, and none of them can do much to guarantee an audience for you. And, I think we can assume that subscription models aren't going to scale well. In a way, you can think of the recording industry's model as a subscription-based one -- in that they expect people to pay for access to content on an ongoing basis -- and look at how that's gone for them. The more pressure they put on the consumers, the more clever solutions the consumers come up with to distribute the content for free. I have an aunt who started a beautiful magazine for the central coast and three different friends who have worked in various parts of the news industry. I'm not just pulling these things out of my ass; I've heard about the industry problems from people who are working in the industry. But, I think we found the right lever that can balance all of this out again. We've already submitted our app for YCW10, software is currently under heavy development, and we're still polishing some edges on the business model. Can't wait to see what happens.

jrwoodruff 17y ago
You've piqued my interest. This field is definitely ripe for some experimentation. Be sure to post when you've got a beta, I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got!
michael_dorfman 17y ago
I wish you luck, honestly. But I disagree with most of the premises you outline. Why sit and read a newspaper, full of items that someone else picked for you, when you can read a news feed that you've tailored specifically to your interests? Because the New York Times has a better handle on what's going on in the world today than I do? I want to be informed about what's going on out there, and every day at least once I read something interesting in the Times that didn't meet some pre-defined "interest" of mine. News producers are looking for a way to be a well-paid journalist without having to restrict themselves to a single publication. Really? I think most staffers are happy not to be free-lancers. "In a way, you can think of the recording industry's model as a subscription-based one -- in that they expect people to pay for access to content on an ongoing basis -- and look at how that's gone for them." Huh? How is the recording industry's model even remotely like a subscription one? Are you still in the "Columbia House Record & Tape Club" or something?
mrkurt 17y ago
"And, I think we can assume that subscription models aren't going to scale well." I'd be careful making that assumption. There are at least two large, well known magazines that are purely subscription based and doing pretty well (Cook's Illustrated and Consumer Reports). People value their content enough to pay for it, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Their costs are going to decrease substantially as customer preference moves to online delivery, too. There's a great deal of content out there people will pay for and the floundering large publishing companies are responsible for a huge chunk of it. Their problem is, however, that they've attempted to move print style business models directly to the web. Delivering something at marginal cost (effectively 0 on the intertubes) while incurring massive fixed costs and counting on ads for revenue hasn't and isn't going to play out so well when advertisers don't value the audience and medium like they do for print. ESPN has one of the more interesting models out there. They've done a really good job offering premium paid content in addition to their free web based stuff. I think you'll see other online publishers do something similar, with varying levels of success.

jrwoodruff 17y ago

You've piqued my interest. This field is definitely ripe for some experimentation. Be sure to post when you've got a beta, I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got!

michael_dorfman 17y ago

I wish you luck, honestly. But I disagree with most of the premises you outline. Why sit and read a newspaper, full of items that someone else picked for you, when you can read a news feed that you've tailored specifically to your interests? Because the New York Times has a better handle on what's going on in the world today than I do? I want to be informed about what's going on out there, and every day at least once I read something interesting in the Times that didn't meet some pre-defined "interest" of mine. News producers are looking for a way to be a well-paid journalist without having to restrict themselves to a single publication. Really? I think most staffers are happy not to be free-lancers. "In a way, you can think of the recording industry's model as a subscription-based one -- in that they expect people to pay for access to content on an ongoing basis -- and look at how that's gone for them." Huh? How is the recording industry's model even remotely like a subscription one? Are you still in the "Columbia House Record & Tape Club" or something?

mrkurt 17y ago

"And, I think we can assume that subscription models aren't going to scale well." I'd be careful making that assumption. There are at least two large, well known magazines that are purely subscription based and doing pretty well (Cook's Illustrated and Consumer Reports). People value their content enough to pay for it, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Their costs are going to decrease substantially as customer preference moves to online delivery, too. There's a great deal of content out there people will pay for and the floundering large publishing companies are responsible for a huge chunk of it. Their problem is, however, that they've attempted to move print style business models directly to the web. Delivering something at marginal cost (effectively 0 on the intertubes) while incurring massive fixed costs and counting on ads for revenue hasn't and isn't going to play out so well when advertisers don't value the audience and medium like they do for print. ESPN has one of the more interesting models out there. They've done a really good job offering premium paid content in addition to their free web based stuff. I think you'll see other online publishers do something similar, with varying levels of success.