A must-read post on the future of what's still termed -- with declining agreement on what the term means -- the news media:
Jeff "BuzzMachine" Jarvis recaps a speech in London last week by Alan Rusbridger, editor of Britain's The Guardian newspaper. The subject: newspapers in the age of blogs. Rusbridger describes the economic problem, complete with a now-familiar protagonist:
"[Rusbridger] explains Craigslist, its impact on the newspaper industry, and its 'very unusual business model: It’s free to both sides…. Now that’s a difficult business model to beat.' He says that 'the people who are really terrified of Craig Newmark are The New York Times.' He explains that job ads on Craigslist in three cities cost $20 — and that adds up to $10 million a year among 18 employees, he estimates. Then he demonstrates ordering a deluxe $958 ad on the NY Times site — he makes up a call for journalists to work in Guardian America, 'and I told them to apply to C.P. Scott in Manchester' (the Guardian’s legendary editor of 57 years). The contrast continues: He shows pictures of Craig’s humble headquarters and the new Times headquarters — 'and you see the nature of The New York Times’ problem.' Of course, falling advertising is the problem. Rusbridger reviews the history of newspapers. In Britain, in the beginning, newspapers were supported by their politicians until 'advertisers gave newspapers a form of independence.' But now those advertisers are going elsewhere. 'There are great, bleeding chunks going out of newspaper revenue at a time when sales are down…. Most journalists are finally getting this The penny is finally dropping….'
Rusbridger uses a homely illustration for the newspapers' plight, Jarvis reports: They're stuck in a kind of blob at the bottom of a trench. On one side of the trench is the present -- a steeply declining ad sales trend. On the other is the future -- a sharply ascending line representing interest in and the flight of ad dollars to new media.
And about the future:
--"[Rusbridger] asks the question everyone asks: 'Where’s the revenue? This is my favorite quote from the book about Google: "They had no revenue model until 2001. ′ ... And it’s now worth, depending on the day of the week, between $40 and $80 billion.”
--"He tells his audience about a wide range of Web 2.0 companies and talks about having dinner with the Digg guys, who he says will 'either be multibillionnaires in a few years time or just go on being geeks.' He does take some hope that the aggregators find newspaper content interesting; that’s what they’re aggregating. This is why he says it’s 'mad to be sacking journalists,' because we need the content they produce, though he then adds, 'we may need to sack some.'
--"Later, he is asked about aggregators and whether he objects to what they do and whether he can stop them. ... [H]e confesses to sitting with the Digg guys, seeing them make money while The Guardian loses money, and wondering about building a wall. 'But actually, they are driving traffic back to the Guardian site. The more of a wall that you put around, whether it’s a wall of payment or a wall of registration, the more you’re repelling people rather than building an audience for the day when we hope that advertising will come in like the cavalry and rescue us. So I think at the moment, the smarter thing to do is to make your content available everywhere and to have it aggregated and linked to like mad by everybody in the world, because that way you will reach a gigantic audience. And that matters journalistically. If you’re in the business of journalism for influence, and because of the Guardian worldview that you believe in, it’s terrific to have an audience of 14 million instead of 400,000. That’s wonderful. So why would you want to turn them away?'
Comments