New Century, New Non-sense

Newspaper executives met in Chicago this past week to bemoan their collective debts, declining revenues and inability to figure out how to make money on the Web. The event was organized by the remaining staffers of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) and according to an agenda obtained by the Associated Press, was called "Models to Lawfully Monetize Content." Purportedly, a anti-trust lawyer was present to warn participants when they were drifting too close to the collusion line.

A day or decade too late and a dollar short, they have apparently decided that they must charge for content, despite the fact that there are few examples out there of companies that have had success with it. I know, I know, the Wall Street Journal charges -- yes, and as Jeff Jarvis points out those fees are expensed by corporate credit cards, not home subscribers. Still what else is a dying news-on-pulp company to do?

The EditorsWeblog saw the summit as a good thing, since the fact that they are kibitzing is a sign that care and thought are going into changing any business models. I am afraid I don't share the same enthusiasm. In April 1995, 8 major newspaper publishers formed the New Century Network (NCN) to create a gated information community -- one sign in would allow access to all the great content that those companies spewed. Each one ponied up a million dollars, and then started bickering on which browser to adopt. Unbelievably they insisted on a proprietary browser versus the open Mosaic. At the end of three years, they had figured out a way to squandar $26m.

I remember the timing well as I had just formed the Interactive Division for New Jersey Press -- and my first official decision was to not join NCN. I spent the million figuring out how to build a statewide Internet dial-up network and news portal instead.

To attract a mass audience -- you need masses -- which you don't get using proprietary interfaces, just ask AOL, CompuServe and all the rest of the bulletin board systems that have come and gone.

But the industry has always been less about providing access and more about protectionism, which in many ways is both ironic and paradoxical. The news industry used to represent "the free press." With free not being a modifier meaning without value, but rather, without restraints. That one needed to jump through hoops to gain access to the news is another issue.

The industry failed with its last century network because it failed to understand technology and how people adopt to it. The industry will fail with this century's network -- because it fails to realize that it is no longer the only news source. In fact, it stopped being the only news source when it took its eye off the ball of serving the community with news -- and started trimming costs to please shareholders. Newspapers commoditized their own products when they resorted to stringers instead of beat reporters; when they opted for wire copy instead of creating new. And the shareholders were relentless. When the coffee and the excess bureaus had been axed, it was now time to trim marrow.

What is it now that people would be paying for? Bloggers and citizen journalists are scooping the pros -- who are now restrained from following leads because it may annoy a corporate "benefactor." Being cautious is good, being solicitous is not. For news organizations to succeed online they must provide value -- and I don't see how circling the wagons is going to do anything but dim their prospects faster.

Disintermediation: Opportunity & Analysis

"The Media should charge for content," so sayeth pundits about news sites.

Should is such an interesting verb that stretches from mandate to polite suggestion. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers (in order): to express condition, obligation, futurity, what is probable or expected, and finally, to "express a request in a polite manner." The pundits no doubt are more than suggesting, and are obliging that the media must charge for content.

Really, I would venture that media companies are not actually adverse to charging for content, but since most haven't since their initial foray onto the web, can't figure out how to do so without committing suicide. (At the recent min summit, Forbes.com CEO Jim Spanfeller was urging his fellow publishers to lock up their content behind a paywall!) Despite that, Rupert Murdoch is said to be establishing a strategic team to figure out how he can charge for his print properties. And The New York Times is toying with a few different ideas. Of the two mentioned (metering content consumption and charging for overage vs. creating a membership community) I am partial to the community idea which is the model used by museums.

My friend Michael Chwastiak sent me a link to Jason Pontin's prescription for saving publishers. I have read and re-read his (long) missive several times to cull the best points: you can charge for content that is uniquely intelligent and editors, nay, publishers, need to re-examine the needs of the audience. As I have written before, editors forget that as one generation passes the next generation may not have the same values and needs. Indeed, one fundamental change that has occurred is disintermediation. As readers can freely communicate with each other and vendors -- the role of media as gatekeeper has diminished from its historical role. But that does not mean the role of journalist/editor has ceased to be important.

Rather the role has evolved to be more of an analyst than merely story teller. With hundreds of comments and opinions at the ready, the new value is in interpreting that data. Synthesizing the thoughts of bloggers and commenters into content "reports" would provide more value than merely regurgitating another wire story.

This is the monetizable model that works for business intelligence companies and this is a model that should work for many media companies.