Free is way too expensive

“Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.”

Three cheers for Mr. Hinton, chief exec of Dow Jones. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

It really is time to get our heads around the idea of paying for online news content (the good stuff, that is). Digital content is where it’s at, but just because we aren’t paying for it doesn’t mean it’s free.

All the online news orgs have been trying to support themselves with advertising, but it’s not enough. Giving away good content is not a good business model - freeconomics just won’t work in the long term.

Smaller news organizations fear charging the right price could be their demise, but if they have something unique or of value to offer, why the heck not?

In Brett Arend's MarketWatch commentary this week, he highlights Talking Points Memo (TPM), a liberal online news source that is turning a profit, paying above average salaries and expects to triple in size by 2012. How are they doing it? By catering to a very specific niche market. They employ a focused journalistic staff of 7. They know who their audience is and what they come online looking for.

This demonstrates that the public IS willing to pay for quality content and news, and contradicts the popular thinking of free as a business model.

The current model has to change and there are many reasons why online news could become profitable and could actually raise the quality of the content. The internet eliminates costs like paper and printing and distribution services, and if realistically priced online subscriptions combined with a lean staff of experienced journalists providing great content, then why should news agencies not turn a profit? How could they not?

I’ve been banging this drum for years now. The internet began as a renegade information source, but things have changed. If news services don’t start charging – and realistic subscription fees thank you very much – for genuine journalism, not only will more newsrooms be reduced to tumbleweed rows, but the content we read will simply erode to tabloid fodder provided by people unqualified to deliver content worth reading.

And that’s not news, even if it’s free.

Unpredictions For 2010/Beyond the Press Release

This is part of a series of unpredictions I've written -- this one being closest to my heart, an anti-forecast for the PR industry. In a nutshell, I am optimistic about what 2010 holds for us in PR. I have to be. I believe the industry is well-positioned to take great strides over the coming year. Operating from a frugal mindset, more businesses are definitely favoring the value and effectiveness of PR over high-investment strategies like, um, advertising. And as the recovery takes hold and government continues to incentivize small business creation, I also see a lot of startups turning to PR to help with market development, branding and visibility. This is a good thing.

Most agencies -- size notwithstanding -- have taken a battering this year, being challenged to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less. Going forward, I see the leaders in PR as those who distinguish themselves in this highly competitive environment by going the extra mile for clients. And in an era of doing more with less, this will be as much a survival strategy as a competitive edge in 2010.

But enough of the serious stuff. Click here my unpredictions for 2010, and if any come to fruition, you'll have to blame my crystal ball!

#Number Forty Eight, The Week That Was

And what a fantabulous week it was, full of meaty goodness for the tabloids. Tiger seriously maimed his brand, a preggers lady pops one out on the plane, and the Italians almost lynched young murderess, Amanda Knox. Oh, Afghanistan will be the proud caretaker of 30,000 more US troops and consumers are finally spending a little bit more. Three cheers for consumerism!

Other news you could have used…

Newspapers
German publisher Springer wants to save the newspapers by, wait for it, charging for content. How original$#@*& But while there’s nothing new in that kind of wishful thinking, I wholeheartedly support Springer’s MO – charging for quality content and getting rid of the meta-philosophy of free. I’ve been harping on about this since 2005 – why didn’t anyone listen? Eric Pfanner writes in his article for the New York Times “Publisher Lays Out Plan to Save Newspapers” that Springer wants to create a “one-click marketplace solution” for online content, so that instead of separate pay walls around individual newspaper Web sites, publishers and Internet companies can work together. Can you see this happening, honestly?

And more about newspapers, checkbook bias
Blurring the very distinct lines between editorial content and advertising has been pooh-poohed for a very long time. But a bunch of ad guys in Dallas have decided to take over some newsrooms, because apparently some editors are ready to bend over and take it. think it’s okay to blend sales with editorial. Because of course the sales managers would never, ever get in the way of news coverage. Never. Of course not. We know that papers need to sell ads to stay in business, and I’d be the biggest hypocrite if I said otherwise (see above). But sales execs have absolutely no place in determining editorial coverage or what gets placed on those pages. Once they take over control of “messaging” in news, our trust of media is totally doomed. Millions of people have been up in arms about media bias over the past few months and the WH/MSNBC vs. Fox-Off, and this brings it to a whole new level: checkbook bias. It also smells of a massive ethics conflict just waiting to happen. Sadly, the winner will be the one with the biggest checkbook, not the moral one. I know that newspapers are trying out all types of different new business models, but they should totally trash this one. I work with newsrooms all around the country and if I have to starting ponying up to receive “unbiased” coverage for my clients, the PR agency model is so, so dead.

About the large and airplanes
I know I’ll be accused of being a fatist for the following post, but I’m definitely not. I used to be 65 pounds heavier, so I know what it feels like to be categorized as fat. But these days, when I stroll up to the check-in counter with just 5lbs of extra luggage and get walloped with a $100 surcharge, I take absolutely no issue with that airline charging an additional surcharge or fare for an extremely overweight person. A recent story circulated from FlightGlobal.com onto MSNBC and the Huffington Post with pictures of a man taking up half an aisle, a seat and then some. Airlines charge for extra luggage because it reduces the carrying capacity on the plane. There is a maximum weight (load) that any plane can carry and that’s why there’s a personal allowance. Someone who boards a plane and who’s used up 15 peoples’ personal allowance, not to mention spreading over to the next seat, needs to pay for their “extra share”. The only difference between that person’s extra luggage and mine, is that mine has to be checked. It’s not discriminatory: if you travel with a pet, you pay extra. If you travel with a child, you pay extra. If you travel with an extra 100lb belly, you pay extra. Conversation over, next!

Dead man rocking
At first I laughed and then when I read the story, I cried. A 33 year-old man had be cut out of his recliner after spending 8 months in it. It’s a sorry state when you’ve allowed yourself to get to a point when you cannot move or get up from a chair. 550lbs? No one needs to resign themselves to being that heavy. I feel guilty if I sit on my behind for more than 5 hrs at a stretch (13 is my record, I had a lot of proposals to knock out). And it’s just as sad when your partner watches idly and does nothing to intervene. But what’s really sad is that the healthcare system is simply not there for people like the Webbs. Live in a mobile home in a low-income community and have no health insurance. It’s not a pretty picture to be sure, but it made me cry nonetheless. I’m just wondering if the recliner was a La-Z-Boy?

Porn, porn wherever you are
Love porn? There’s a new app for that. Called MiKandi, Mobile Marketing Watch reports that the world’s first adult-only app store was recently launched for Android devices, but not the iPhone. I wonder what Apple’s afraid of? In the porn-only store, users can search a range of free and paid applications, post reviews and join discussions – all in the privacy of the bus, train or office cubicle. In a long meeting full of boring PowerPoints, MiKandi now comes to the rescue. Mobile phone come out, come out wherever you are.

Putting Tiger’s tangles to rest
Tiger Woods to media: I don't need you bums. Thank you Tiger, we’re all ready to move on the next philanderer now. What’s the chances of it being a women? Anyone?

Here’s to another great week everyone!

Vanessa