3 ms·

What's killing publishers is not a content monetizing problem, it's a basic business-model problem: publishers have been making too much money on print-ad sales

What's killing publishers is not a content monetizing problem, it's a basic business-model problem: publishers have been making too much money on print-ad sales and like everything else the internet has made advertising cheaper. Publishers don't just need to perfect a micro-payment solution for content, they need to change the way they create that content to make their entire business cheaper to operate.

JLaramie 17y ago
Sounds like an opportunity for an outsider to step in and craft a more efficient model. Is it just that the industry is stuck in its own trap?
natrius 17y ago
Unless you're going to pay journalists less or hire fewer of them, journalism isn't going to get any cheaper. It's a revenue problem, not an expenses one. I want the best journalism possible, and I'm willing to pay for it not just so I can read it, but so others can be informed and our democracy will actually have a chance of working. Producing journalism as cheaply as possible won't result in the kind of democracy I want to live in. The sacrifices that have been made have already led in that direction.
- Tangurena 17y ago
  > pay journalists less or hire fewer of them That has been the practice of media companies for more than two decades. Mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of print media owners to a tiny handful. The problem is more that those businesses are used to 20% profit margins, and with over-inflated prices paid during the acquisitions, there is far less incentive to pay market rates for journalists, or even to keep them employed. While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring the journalists sure aren't. Furthermore, the line between editorial content and actual reporting has become so blurry that the smart thing to do is presume that the entire newspaper is editorial.
  - natrius 17y ago
    "While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring the journalists sure aren't." I agree. That's why I think the best option is for people like me to hire our own journalists by funding non-profit journalism. Then again, I'm biased. http://www.texastribune.org http://www.texastribune.org
- lloydarmbrust 17y ago
  Have you ever worked in a newspaper? It's like working in government (I know, I've worked in both). The problem with newspapers is bureaucratic waste . . . and the inability to adapt quickly. I think journalists should be paid more, but that the bureaucratic structure that surrounds them should be eliminated.
  - natrius 17y ago
    I'm working in my second news organization right now, though this is my first real exposure to the editorial side of things. We're not really a normal news organization, though. No bureaucracy, and adapting quickly is pretty much an every day thing. It's early times, but it seems like a promising model for journalism to me. http://www.texastribune.org http://www.texastribune.org

JLaramie 17y ago

Sounds like an opportunity for an outsider to step in and craft a more efficient model. Is it just that the industry is stuck in its own trap?

natrius 17y ago

Unless you're going to pay journalists less or hire fewer of them, journalism isn't going to get any cheaper. It's a revenue problem, not an expenses one. I want the best journalism possible, and I'm willing to pay for it not just so I can read it, but so others can be informed and our democracy will actually have a chance of working. Producing journalism as cheaply as possible won't result in the kind of democracy I want to live in. The sacrifices that have been made have already led in that direction.

Tangurena 17y ago
> pay journalists less or hire fewer of them That has been the practice of media companies for more than two decades. Mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of print media owners to a tiny handful. The problem is more that those businesses are used to 20% profit margins, and with over-inflated prices paid during the acquisitions, there is far less incentive to pay market rates for journalists, or even to keep them employed. While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring the journalists sure aren't. Furthermore, the line between editorial content and actual reporting has become so blurry that the smart thing to do is presume that the entire newspaper is editorial.
- natrius 17y ago
  "While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring the journalists sure aren't." I agree. That's why I think the best option is for people like me to hire our own journalists by funding non-profit journalism. Then again, I'm biased. http://www.texastribune.org http://www.texastribune.org
lloydarmbrust 17y ago
Have you ever worked in a newspaper? It's like working in government (I know, I've worked in both). The problem with newspapers is bureaucratic waste . . . and the inability to adapt quickly. I think journalists should be paid more, but that the bureaucratic structure that surrounds them should be eliminated.
- natrius 17y ago
  I'm working in my second news organization right now, though this is my first real exposure to the editorial side of things. We're not really a normal news organization, though. No bureaucracy, and adapting quickly is pretty much an every day thing. It's early times, but it seems like a promising model for journalism to me. http://www.texastribune.org http://www.texastribune.org