Crovitz Asks The Right Question About Newspapers
L. Gordon Crovitz, the guy at the WSJ who had the job of defending their paid online subscription model (and I'm one of those who pays for an online subscription), points out, with this question, where newspapers have been going wrong:
For years, publishers and editors have asked the wrong question: Will people pay to access my newspaper content on the Web? The right question is: What kind of journalism can my staff produce that is different and valuable enough that people will pay for it online?
Crovitz notes:
...few city newspapers try to generate revenues directly from readers online, a huge problem now that advertising is so weak in print and online. Something needs to change if these newspapers and their large news staffs are to survive. The market capitalization of the New York Times Co. last week fell to the $500 million range -- what the MarketWatch Web site cost Dow Jones to acquire just a few years ago. Thus the renewed focus on new business models.
Locally, the LA Times has really made a mess of it. Mickey Kaus made the point at a dinner a friend of ours threw (and I don't think he'll mind me mentioning it), that their error was in offering buyouts instead of firing people. So, the best and the brightest (like Kevin Sack) took off for the New York Times, while some talented (and many not-so-re-employable) journos stayed on.
Now, the paper gets more and more like the thickness of a newsletter. The way things have been going, it'll soon be one mimeographed sheet of paper, and then it won't exist at all.
As they're making their paper less and less valuable, let's go back to Crovitz' question: What's your answer? Is there journalism you'd pay for?
And don't forget watchdog journalism, i.e., investigative journalism. It's extraordinarily expensive, and few are doing it anymore. This means there's less of a check on malfeasance in society. What, you think bloggers are going to fly themselves across the country to report on a story?
Oh, and in case you've been hearing about that micropayments notion, techdirt put that right to bed, pretty much deeming Walter Isaacson a dotty old fool in the process. Mike Masnick writes, (echoing Crovitz' point):
I can go through all the basic arguments about mental transaction costs and the cost side of managing micropayments: but there's an even simpler answer.If most newspapers switch to micropayments, someone much smarter when it comes to business than Isaacson will create a new news site that doesn't charge. And they'll make it high quality, and they'll be able to make money through other means. Hell, it will be easier because all the fools who follow Isaacson and others in demanding payment will take all the competition out of the market.
...Oh, and one final point: just as in the article we saw yesterday, note that nowhere does Isaacson talk about giving people a reason to pay for the content. He just assumes they will. I'm sure the buggy whip makers expected people to keep spending money on buggy whips as well.
And here, from Charles Arthur, in The Guardian, is how he thinks micropayments will turn the web into Zimbabwe (and that's after all the malware attacks):
And while that was happening, you'd seen rivals in a race to the bottom to get more people to come to their site by charging less. They'd need ever more micro-micropayments. It really would turn into the Zimbabwean dollar, in a strange economic twist where falling prices would demand smaller denominations, which could only be achieved by forcibly devaluing the principal currency - a flipside of real-life inflation.That would destroy trust in micropayments, and lead to them being abandoned pretty quickly. We'd go back to what we have now, for better or worse: a system where people can pay large amounts for subscriptions, or small-ish amounts for one-off purchases (such as iTunes songs).
Finally, a guy named Albert, on techdirt, makes a good point:
Yet another reason micropayments won't work is that they add up. The web's grown because we can afford to wade through all the noise to discover and find the limited content that we want. We can afford to amuse ourselves or, more accurately, we can afford to fail to amuse ourselves.Once we start paying for every page visited, even if it's a penny or few, we're going to stop exploring because we'll be paying much more for the myriad pages of junk we wade through than we will for the content we ultimately wanted or needed.
At least ninety percent of the links I follow from Digg, Fark and their ilk are to things I'm indifferent about. Probably no more than two percent turn out to be things that I found interesting or worthwhile once I got there. Links from Google search results are only marginally more satisfying. If you start charging me by the page I won't be wasting my cents on anything that doesn't have a very high probability of satisfying me. That means I'm going to stick with what I know more often than not.
"And don't forget watchdog journalism, i.e., investigative journalism. It's extraordinarily expensive, and few are doing it anymore. This means there's less of a check on malfeasance in society. What, you think bloggers are going to fly themselves across the country to report on a story?"
The advantage that bloggers have, is that there are so many of them: someone will already be in the neighborhood. As long as their results are findable, the MSM only has to be able to use google to find a local investigative source.
bradley13 at February 23, 2009 5:03 AM
Will I pay for an online paper? In a word, no. I barely pay for a paper version. I buy the Sunday paper for, no lie, the TV guide. I read it because I do but I wouldn't buy it if it wasn't cheaper and more complete than TV Guide, except when apartment hunting for the rent ads. Frankly, if I had internet at home, I wouldn't even bother for those as I'd get them online. And the digital TV is even giving short listings of what's coming up on each channel.
Sorry, Amy, but papers are really less and less necessary.
That micropayments thing sounds awful and I'm with Albert on that. I can think of very little I'd be willing to click on that way. And I'm curious, how exactly will that work in places where you can access for free like the library? Employers would love it but that's probably about it.
T's Grammy at February 23, 2009 6:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/23/gordon_l_crovit.html#comment-1635647">comment from bradley13As long as their results are findable, the MSM only has to be able to use google to find a local investigative source.
Don't be ridiculous. Just from our local paper, two examples, the investigative reporting that closed "Killer King" -- King Drew hospital -- and the Pulitzer winning pieces that stopped the killer Harrier aircraft. You think a blogger is going to go investigate a hospital for a year?
I can't do more than I've done on Bank of America because I need to eat. The investigation I did do ate my life for months, and cost me personally and in terms of my earnings. And I've blogged about it and reported it to the House Finance Committee, Senate Banking Committee, The Comptroller of the Currency (September 22, and they've still done nothing about it, as far as I know, and it's February -- well over their 20 or 30 days they're supposed to take), The Federal Reserve, the FBI, and Jerry Brown's office (California Atty General).
Do you notice Bank of America has changed their way of doing business one iota?
Amy Alkon at February 23, 2009 6:58 AM
I think the demise of paid journalism is a serious problem.
On the other hand, newspapers have to fill their pages every day, and when there's nothing to report, they fill them with drivel. The free press is democracy's defence mechanism, but for much of the time it is undermining the very thing it is supposed to be defending.
The web is filled with information of all sorts. I hope that the mass of people will learn to be critical of what they are told. This would be a great step forward. It would be interesting to find out if it is actually happening. Anyone want a social science PhD?
Norman at February 23, 2009 8:37 AM
Is there journalism you'd pay for? I have subscriptions to 2 things.
*Knowledge News. They send you e-mails about publish great ebooks about current events, history, and geography in plain, understandable language. They are fantastic because they give you the context to understand the news.
*The Economist. I feel like I need a machete to get through it, but that it is well worth it.
In general, I'm willing to spend money on magazines. Has the advantage of all print publications (the computer screen hurts my eyes), but they're not as unwieldly as a newspaper. I'm more likely to buy a weekly/monthly magazine to catch up on all the newsworthy highlights than I am to buy my local daily every morning. But I do see the importance of the local daily in watchdog journalism--it's necessary to have someone who is not personally affected by an issue who has the time and resources to pour over records, find numbers, and find people to speak on the record--not to mention the editorial staff that is needed to ensure that all the info gathered is presented in a legit way.
sofar at February 23, 2009 9:32 AM
You need to check your sources. The Harrier was being introduced when I was in the Marines. The older AV8 A models have been replaced by the B model, but we're talking over 30 years of service.
If you mean the Osprey, that is not dead either. Despite some design flaws, and some horrifying crashes early on, the aircraft is in service, and a squadron is actually flying in Iraq. The Air Force is lobbying for accelerate production of their version. I believe production was approved for the Marine Corps version as well.
Failure to buy the Osprey means that the Marine Corps continues with the Vietnam era CH46 and CH47 to move their supplies ashore. Perhaps you missed the story of the Royal Marines killed when their CH46 crashed at the beginning of Gulf War II?
On topic, the newspapers have killed themselves. I see no point in paying for their advocacy. Sell me an unbiased presentation of all the facts and I'll buy it.
MarkD at February 23, 2009 10:13 AM
There are so many free papers and news websites out there. It would have to be pretty amazing to get me to pay for it. I buy the paper when I need to take a train, and I've already read the Metro and the other free papers, and want to do the crossword.
NicoleK at February 23, 2009 10:49 AM
MarkD,
The Marines are flying the Ospreys already.
And he's right Amy. The Harriers are still being used too.
Elle at February 23, 2009 10:57 AM
Thanks Elle, I knew the Ospreys in Iraq were flown by the Marine Corps. IIRC, those would be the first dozen or so of a planned few hundred for the Marines, enough to eventually replace the CH46.
For anyone who cares about the details, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-A-Flying-Shame-04822/
is a more balanced look at the program, warts and all.
My point stands. You can't trust the media to give you all the facts, or even all the relevant ones. They are reaping what they've sown.
MarkD at February 23, 2009 1:19 PM
As Amy knows, most MSM's don't bother to fact check very much, even the simplest things. Remember Theresa Duncan's claims to degress from Michigan were published in both the NYT and the LAT, and when questioned, the NYT reporter said that people just didn't lie to the NYT. If they can't be bothered to check easy stuff, why should I trust them with bigger issues?
Kate at February 23, 2009 4:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/23/gordon_l_crovit.html#comment-1635745">comment from KateKate, because there are errors in some stories doesn't mean there's no value to newspapers or professional reporting. Your story, for example, was very instructive and well-reported (not that I'd expect less of you). I similarly put a great deal of work into seeing that I tell the truth.
Oh, and let's not forget that plenty of non mainstream media people are full of it and then some.
Amy Alkon at February 23, 2009 7:53 PM
I like good investigative journalism, and I'd actually pay for a newspaper that made that kind of reporting a cornerstone of their offering.
However.
Given that, in argument anyway, the large media companies are the ones with the (supposed) resources to do in depth investigative reporting, where *is* all of that reporting?
Where is the mainstream investigation and substantive reporting of senators and congressmen, etc., failing to pay taxes, or getting sweetheart deals, and so forth?
Yes, there have been mentions of it in various places, but, by and large, the ones doing the most complaining about subscribers are doing the least work in the field.
Maybe it's a chicken and egg kind of thing, but it seems to me that they doth protest a bit too much, for the most part.
Your experience with BOA is a case in point. I'm sure you've tried to interest some reporters and papers to pursue this issue, but is there any traction? I clearly remember, and not all that long ago, when a good journalist would be chomping at the bit for an opportunity like that.
And even when they do engage in a good amount of investigative journalism, they largely only do so when it serves their agenda.
How much effort do you think these media outlets will devote, in between gasping for breath from fellating our dear leader, to investigating our 'stimulus' deal, and so on?
I agree with Glenn Reynolds, that there is a lot of room for coordination between major media powerhouses, and the army of davids doing personal reporting. The big media houses are, ostensibly, in the best position to do good investigative reporting, the problem is that they aren't doing it (at least, not very much).
I will gladly pay for content from the major media, when, and only when, they drop the fluff and obvious agenda pieces, and get on with the job of doing real, reasonably objective, reporting of the facts of the story.
Rod at February 23, 2009 9:37 PM
I'd subscribe to this. That might be the new business model: Ignore the news. No, that's stupid. It would be nice, though -- all the pundits flippin' shut up once in a while.
I can see where the WSJ journal guy is coming from, but hasn't the newspaper industry/market been a pretty darn lucrative place up until now? 20%- 40% profit margins and a monopoly on the market? It's also ironic seeing that the subprime/financial meltdown story wasn't on the Journal's radar screen and some bloggers were the ones warning what was going to happen -- for free or cheap. And, of course, the consequences are turning out to be pretty expensive.
I've heard Voice of San Diego has been doing top-notch local investigative stories, but it's not a newspaper -- it's only online and mostly funded by a philanthropist. And the new Spot.Us in San Francisco pitches stories that readers fund and papers pick up. But most of it seems to be preaching to the choir stuff.
Jason s. at February 23, 2009 9:38 PM
Craigslist is responsible.
Hey Skipper at February 23, 2009 10:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/23/gordon_l_crovit.html#comment-1635777">comment from RodYour experience with BOA is a case in point. I'm sure you've tried to interest some reporters and papers to pursue this issue, but is there any traction?
A reporter at a major daily said there's not enough funding for him to do the story. I pitched it to USA Today, ABC News, the New York Times and I blabbed about it to various people at the LA Times. One reporter who showed some interest has since left the paper.
Initially, I pitched the story to Propublica, the independently funded investigative unit headed up by Paul Steiger (formerly) of the WSJ, and it's my feeling that they bungled the story. They put a reporter on named Mosi Secret who never came out to California, and then complained that tellers wouldn't talk to him. Yeah, right -- what teller is going to spill to some total stranger, connected through nobody, who they only get on the phone. Steven Engelberg, their managing editor pledged to me that if they didn't do the story, he'd find it a home elsewhere. Well, nobody's doing it. And I complained to Steiger via e-mail -- and there's a possibility it never got to him -- but I used the same format I used for Engelberg's e-mail.
Amy Alkon at February 23, 2009 11:16 PM
Initially, I pitched the story to Propublica ...
I remember you commenting on that a while back.
I didn't know that they had some (perhaps tenuous) connection to the WSJ (I generally like the level of reporting from them), it makes it seem pretty lame that they couldn't come up with a better process than a few random phone calls.
Guess there's not a lot of investigation in that investigative unit.
I do think that the major newspaper outlets are (largely) in the best potential position to do good investigative reporting, but it does kind of seem like they're (institutionally, at least) not really interested in it. Like the one fellow who commented on the lack of funding. I imagine that if the paper were really interested in good investigative journalism, they would probably be able to come up with some funding (one would think that this kind of story would get some legs, and at least some readers, as well).
I'd pay for good investigative journalism, but I won't do it on a tenuous promise of possible future returns. There has to be at least some serious initial effort on their part that doesn't involve riding on their efforts in the distant past.
Thing is, a lot of the problems the papers face is of their own making. They're spending so many resources trying to hold on to their old business model, at all costs, that they're digging their own hole, and very few of them are willing to look at the options.
On this, I agree with Crovitz. Give me something I want to pay for, and I'm there. Asking me to pay for the same old stuff, not so much.
Personally, I'd love to see a good big media report on your BOA issue. There's a lot of there there, and it'd be cool to see them squirm.
Rod at February 24, 2009 12:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/23/gordon_l_crovit.html#comment-1635785">comment from RodSorry, that's Paul Steiger FORMERLY of the WSJ. Tired. Deadline day, doing a lot of research-based writing.
Amy Alkon at February 24, 2009 12:59 AM
Actually, you had it stated in the previous post.
I was thinking along the lines that if he used to work for them, something might have rubbed off.
Good luck with your deadline. I'm just finishing up a programming project, so I'm in a similar boat.
Rod at February 24, 2009 1:21 AM
Unrelated note, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it, and nobody's mentioned it yet: I noticed a post from T's Grammy. I hadn't seen any of her words in a while. Have you been away?
old rpm daddy at February 24, 2009 1:41 PM
Not only can you get a lot of the information free, you can also find a lot more unbiased information online than you can in the newspapers that cost money. I'm not saying that it's universal, but information is out there. I'd rather not pay for someone who will always paint me the same side of the story. As I read your column, I read others with similar and opposing views. But subscribing to most papers, it will only give you ONE view and ONE view only. I can't take it.
And quite frankly, most of the time, that view is dire and irredeemable. Even in this rough economy, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and most of the average papers make me want to shoot myself for lack of potential success/promise/life.
Brielle at February 24, 2009 11:01 PM
Online, people will pay for context, perspective, and trustworthiness.
The blogs and websites I regularly frequent have proven themselves to be reliable filters and intelligent/entertaining commentators - tools I can rely on in my personal skim of the information tsunami.
Many of the local papers that are folding were bloated - their core value (local news) was padded with news wire content and syndicated features (sorry Amy). Now the internet has made it more convenient/economical/timely to get the non-local stuff through another medium.
I think small groups of serious journalists could succeed with small-scale, for-pay websites focused on local news - or supplying reliable information for any specialized market slice.
Ben-David at February 27, 2009 1:34 AM
Leave a comment