This week’s Time magazine cover story is about the death of the traditional ink and paper newspaper and the threat of its extinction/replacement by online versions that rely on a shaky, single advertising revenue stream. Written by former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson, it suggests that, like the migration from illegal downloading of music on Napster to the iTunes model where consumers willingly pay a small fee for content, that a similar model is imperative for the survival of professional journalism. Given the degree of competition and the sheer volume of content available from sources that include citizen journalists on the web, do you think this construct is viable?
As an avid user of Wikipedia, I’ve been among the thousands who have willingly contributed money to their cause. Why? Because, as a writer, I value it as a resource and I rely on it daily. It is also a not-for-profit enterprise and does not rely on advertising and I acknowledge that if avid users like me don’t donate, it can’t possibly survive without some other major funding source. So, in a way, their cause really feels like it is our cause. I can’t say I feel the same way about The New York Times, which just required a $250 million cash infusion from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu to stay afloat, but should I? With the sea change in generational media consumption habits, is it realistic to think that we can migrate away from a feeling of entitlement with regards to free and easy access to content to a model where we pay a nominal fee to access articles?
Sounds like a tall order to me, but what do you think?
Rick Petry is a freelance writer who specializes in direct marketing. He can be reached at rick.petry@me.com.
The Newspaper Association of American (NAA) recently reported newspaper revenue fell almost two billion dollars in the third quarter 2008 – that’s down 18 percent. The loss includes both print and online revenue, also down for the second quarter.
