Imagine John Steinbeck spending years researching and writing an American classic. When he completes his tome, the book is offered not for sale, but for free. On the Internet. Steinbeck gets nothing for his work.
Imagine the Ford motor company spending countless years and millions of dollars developing a prototype automobile of the future. When it completes its work, the company offers the car not for sale, but for free, on AutoTrader.com.
Imagine Eli Lilly & Co. employing the world's most renown scientists developing a cancer-fighting drug. When it comes time to put the product on the market, Lilly switches gears and offers the elixir for free. No charge. To anyone who wants it.
Pretty damn crazy, huh?
Maybe not so much. Because everyday, newspapers employ thousands of well-paid, and not-so-well-paid reporters, researchers, editors photographers and layout artists to document what has been called the rough draft of history. And what happens to the fruits of this investment? It is offered free, on the Internet.
Are we stupid or what?
No wonder journalism is a dying breed. We're idiots. Would a plumber come to your house on Chistmas morning, unclog your kitchen sink, then walk away without demanding to be compensated? Then what in heaven's sake are we doing offering, for free, everything we've worked so hard to create?
Why not charge for online content, especially content that is proprietary? Why not offer free access to our Web sites, and perhaps the first few graphs of a wire story, but charge a monthly access fee to anyone who wants to read a story researched, developed and produced by a newspaper staff? Why not charge an access fee to the many yahoos who feel like they need to comment on every story they read online?
If 100,000 people regularly access a newspaper Web site daily, and that newspaper were to charge $5 per month for full access of that site, you're talking about an additional $6 million annually in revenue. That would help make up for a few lost Robinson-May ads.
Sound simplistic? Perhaps. But that's how we need to start thinking. Because the system we have now isn't working. And we're digging our own grave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
It is offered for free online as opposed to for 25 cents at the newsstand... Even if you were to charge a dollar a week for an online subscription, I suspect the average online news consumer would be reluctant to bust out the credit card just to view an article or two on the Washington Post website.
I think one possible solution is for someone to start a type of "all-access pass" online that gets you access to many newspapers and news websites for a certain fee. The proceeds would be distributed to all the participating organizations. The rub is you have to get a bunch of newspapers to go along with it.
You're right on, David. But i think it's too late to turn back now. And that's the saddest thing of all.
Who was it that sang: "Give it away, give it away, give it away now..."
So now people, educated people who care about getting the truth out via newspaper journalism, are losing their jobs (and in my case my health insurance)...
David -- i think the answer is in a national endowment. like taxpayers clicking yes to the $1 contribution for election campaign spending.
news information online should be free, in my opinion. free to everybody. if you want it delivered as a product at your door, then you can pay. but there has to be some sort of public funding for newspapers and the source of that can not be beholden!! to anybody. my two cents.
Sorry, but that is sadly naive. The cost of dead-tree editions only covers the cost of physical distribution, not newsgathering. And there is no proprietary ownership of facts. On the Web, competition is only a click away.
I am truly sorry that so many journalists don't understand these elemental facts about the Web.
Post a Comment