future of news

desantnik

desantnik

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,848
Name
Vlad
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting article on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20395407

Interesting for some of us who supply photos to news outlets anyway.

I was fascinated by the revelation of the local newspaper that tried a pay wall and got only ten subscribers.

Would or do any of you pay for news content anymore?
 
The interesting bit is the final paragraph

"The internet just makes it incredibly hard to have what we used to have before: this lovely cupboard where we could keep the news in, and if you were very good and gave us some money we would let you have some.

"Once you've lost that, it's very difficult to get it back."

We now have a 24 hour live news feed from the war torn front lines, phones and tablets that let you see and interact with almost anything almost anywhere in the world. News is not a local product anymore, news at ten was THE programme to watch if you wanted to know what was happening outside your town, newspapers sales are dropping for online streaming. Social media has boomed, people can get info, tailored to their own personal tastes, share it, blog it, bin it.

We really have an information overload, you don't need to search for it, it follows your trends, knows what you look for on the computer, force feeds info/news/articles/adverts.

We're doomed I tell you, DOOMED!!!!

Other than that, I don't buy news, it's full of celebrity tosh ;)
 
I would not pay for news, the current offerings are what is decided we should hear or read in any case, so in one sense we are subjected to the news provider's agenda. Real news is what Joe Public passes on, much like information was disseminated in medieval times.
 
Very rarely read any newspapers, even rarer that I buy a newspaper. Don't often watch national news on telly. Mainly get it online from the BBC and looking at local papers online.
 
20p for an article is too expensive. What I would pay for is full ipad editions delivered daily. If you look at current electronic papers they're way too thin. I want the entire print edition but electronically.

BBC news isn't free as its paid for in the licence fee.

I get irritated with people linking to pay wall articles. No one reads the times now! Telegraph tried to do pay wall too years ago so I just went elsewhere. Advertising is a more sensible solution but not in the rubbish way the independent have done it. It looks like a cheap gossip mag with the ads running down the back of the page.

If I'm going to pay a sub then I want more than free content offers. Making what was free into paid for never works.

Annoyingly some of the mags have ipad editions with subs but you can't cancel print and be ipad only even if the content is identical and ipad edition misses nothing.
 
Excellent article. Agree 100%. Micropayments is the future of publishing, but as it says in the link, the method has got to be almost subliminal, requiring no more consideration than making a phone call or sending a txt, or even flicking a light switch as it says there. That's how it works when we watch TV ads, and we're all paying for those somewhere along the line, and it funds the whole of ITV.

The problem for printed publications is that the internet is free, and the problem for the internet is also that it's free. As a result, quality content is disappearing and the web is awash with crap, and finding the nuggets is like searching for a needle in a haystack. I'm not suggesting the whole internet should be paid for, absolutely not, but a system where I could just click on an interesting page and get charged 1.2p or something would be wonderful - the charges would be tiny, most of the cost of conventional publishing goes in print and paper and distribution, not content. And at the end of the month a charge for a few quid would appear on my credit card or phone bill or whatever.

I'm happy because I've got lots of great content, cheaply, easily and efficiently. And publishers are happy because they've got a revenue stream that, scaled up globally, allows them to pay for quality material and run a decent business again.

It will happen, because it's good for everyone concerned. The consumer demand is there, the ability and will to provide is there, and everyone knows that if you want quality content, it's got to be paid for. There would be no losers, and the free web carries on as before. We just need the technology, in place and working properly, and then wait a few years for consumers to get on board with it. I'd say five to ten years, realistically. But it's a bit chicken and egg, and needs a few major players with big balls and a lot of cash to set the ball rolling.
 
Good discussion guys!

Personally I think pay per article will narrow the gamut of proper news reporting as only articles that are popular will in time get printed.

Direct consumer interaction will drive the news agenda, which won't be a good thing imho.

Almost certainly it will turn everything into trashy celeb stuff.

It's gonna happen though and the carnage will damage press photographers...
 
The Guardian is (or maybe was) proposing a £2/month levy on all UK internet provider subscriptions, because their business is failing. That's not gonna work for me.
 
desantnik said:
Good discussion guys!

Personally I think pay per article will narrow the gamut of proper news reporting as only articles that are popular will in time get printed.

Direct consumer interaction will drive the news agenda, which won't be a good thing imho.

Almost certainly it will turn everything into trashy celeb stuff.

It's gonna happen though and the carnage will damage press photographers...
Click to expand...

I disagree with all of that! ;)

What gets published is always driven by consumer demand, it was always thus, regardless of media. Direct consumer interaction is a new-to-web thing, and who knows how that will pan out, but I don't see that as inherantly bad at all. We're doing it right here now!

I don't see the web as the only enemy of conventional still press/new photography, far from it. That's been shifting towards TV for decades, that's where most people get their news, almost for as long as I can remember. My parents bought a daily paper; I never have, only sunday papers occasionally; I don't think either of my children has bought a newspaper of any sort, ever, and they're in their 20s.

The immediate problem for stills/press guys today is video.
 
SimonH said:
The Guardian is (or maybe was) proposing a £2/month levy on all UK internet provider subscriptions, because their business is failing. That's not gonna work for me.
Click to expand...

Not heard that.

Thats a bit like the old "blank tape tax" proposed by the music industry back in the 80's when "home taping is killing music".

The Guardian though is an interesting piece of this jigsaw, them having rejected the concept of the pay wall and publishing ALL of their content online - quite often before it appears in their printed publication.

They also see themselves (and I happen to agree with them) as the last bastion of proper in depth news reporting (and photography btw!)

They are however, in trouble like all the others. Which probably suggests that consumer choice isn't choosing them (in suffucient quantities to maintain their business model)
 
Last edited:
I think it won't be long before one of the rolling news channels goes off-air and onto internet only.

As a licence payer I'd like to see it being the BBC go first. Then it can be free to those in this country and chargeable for anyone logging in from a non-UK ISP. The quality of content would remain as it is already paid for by us, so there would be every chance that there would be some significant revenue generated worldwide.

Channel 4 news (the only news I bother watching/reading) would be another contender as they certainly don't generate any revenue from advertising during the programmes. Although not a rolling news channel, I think the fact that they try to take a different angle to the day's news could well generate them some income and also free up a slot for something else.

I rarely watch TV, and almost never 'live', and don't read papers etc. I listen to the headlines on the radio and see some stuff online. If there was a decent internet only news channel/show I would probably watch that.

I think the print media days are well numbered.....that's even before Leveson has had his say!;)
 
HoppyUK said:
I disagree with all of that! ;)

What gets published is always driven by consumer demand, it was always thus, regardless of media. Direct consumer interaction is a new-to-web thing, and who knows how that will pan out, but I don't see that as inherantly bad at all. We're doing it right here now!
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd disagree that traditional media content was consumer demand driven to any large extent.

The true effects of consumer demand only arrived when the spectrum was widened... by computers and multi channel satellite/cable TV.

Before that, a limited number of content providers did stuff and you had little choice in your daily consumption.

The consumer influenced the direction when they actually HAD choice.

Same is happening now with ebooks - you are seeing things from a much wider choice because the infrastructure needed to publish is cheaper, but equally the fragmentation of the market sucks investment away from any one piece.

On the news front, this will result in cheap, mass appeal articles and not perhaps the more thought provoking editorial that you stumble across when you've read the footie results and stared at Nicky, 21 from Portsmouth for as long as you can without your wife noticing...
 
There are going to be casualties, which is bad, and we will probably lose some good stuff in the transition to a 'New (paid for) Media Age' and that is sad.

But looked at from a disinterested perspective, as the consumer does, the outlook is wonderfully good. What you can do on the web compared to print is amazing - sound, movies, zero lead times, consumer interaction, global coverage, no print/paper/distribution or mountains of waste paper. I am very optimistic about the way things are moving long term, even though it kinda cost me my job short-term.

I'm not sure how much of the old guard will survive. The transition has barely started and yet many have gone to the wall already. The Guardian may go, either because they can't or won't evolve, and the Huffington Post take its place.
 
TBH I wouldn't pay a single penny for any of the crap spewed out by our nationals these days.

Most of it is so biased as to be worthless and the "science" articles are even worse, written by hacks whose only knowledge of science is how much they can make writing crap.

Which is why I prefer forums where at least you get some decent conversations and opinions - which may be wrong but at least there are others who can put them right.

And in the end you can LEARN from both views.

.
 
Depends what you are talking about specifically to be honest Peter AND which national papers you choose to read.

Most being general publications, you are unlikely to find the space allocated to any more than brush the surface of any one story.

The broadsheets tend to do better than the tabloids though and I'd find it hard to dismiss all of the content as rubbish.

Pretty much every piece of writing is biased in some way, to make a point - without a conclusion in a particular direction the writing is either brief or probably not worth reading.

Is interactive discussion of a subject worth more than an "expert" opinion piece? Maybe, it does depend on the knowledge and ability of the various posters to make it so though.

Few will ever respond in depth to a discussion though, the internet tends to lead to quick, badly thought out, badly written responses with extreme polarisation.
 
I don't think news in it self sells. What the broadsheets have to do to keep readers is offer quality analysis of the news and interesting opinion on the news. X did Y at Z tells me nothing and I can get that anywhere. Quality investigative journalism that digs out history of a situation to put into context is always worthwhile.

I thought the guardian newspaper was a registered charity or it is run on a charitable basis?
 
srichards said:
I don't think news in it self sells. What the broadsheets have to do to keep readers is offer quality analysis of the news and interesting opinion on the news. X did Y at Z tells me nothing and I can get that anywhere. Quality investigative journalism that digs out history of a situation to put into context is always worthwhile.

I thought the guardian newspaper was a registered charity or it is run on a charitable basis?
Click to expand...

Yes, and there is a fundamental demand and need for that. But it costs money to produce quality content and the traditional ways of paying for it, by sales of printed media or advertising space and air time, no longer work, resulting in a media vacuum.

I have no doubt at all that the vacuum will be filled, and micropayments is emerging as the likely solution. But exactly when, by whom, and precisely how it will work is less clear.
 
srichards said:
20p for an article is too expensive. What I would pay for is full ipad editions delivered daily. If you look at current electronic papers they're way too thin. I want the entire print edition but electronically.
Click to expand...

You've obviously not looked at The Times and The Sunday Times iPad editions then. They are all of the print edition and more (inlaid videos etc).
Excellent quality.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, and there is a fundamental demand and need for that. But it costs money to produce quality content and the traditional ways of paying for it, by sales of printed media or advertising space and air time, no longer work, resulting in a media vacuum.
Click to expand...

Is that because of loss of sales because people are less interested or are spending there time on other things? (eg facebook) or is it because escalating costs have outstripped circulation figures/advertising? ie it costing more, not generating less.

I have no doubt at all that the vacuum will be filled, and micropayments is emerging as the likely solution. But exactly when, by whom, and precisely how it will work is less clear.
Click to expand...

Its going to take a standardised format for micro payments to make it happen.

Before that happens, several different types will come along, one will ultimately prove dominant and destroy/absorb the rest - along the lines of Mastercard/Visa/Amex.

Big ask though, probably 10-20 years and news publishing will be dead long before then.
 
desantnik said:
Is that because of loss of sales because people are less interested or are spending there time on other things? (eg facebook) or is it because escalating costs have outstripped circulation figures/advertising? ie it costing more, not generating less.
Click to expand...

Lots of things I guess, and for sure people are using their time differently, eg reading Facebook instead of a newspaper and once consumer habits change it's hard to get them back. But I can't imagine The Guardian is losing too many sales to Facebook.

The problem for conventional printed media is not lack of interest, but lack of circulation sales. They've just fallen through the floor. In my area, I used to run Practical Photography magazine when it sold 120,000 a month, was the biggest selling photo mag in Europe, and made a tidy sum. It now sells less than a quarter of that, and falling, losing sales to the internet and websites like this!

All printed media is the same, and the 'free' internet cannot replace it. But there is a real consumer demand and need, a definite will to supply quality content - it just costs money. Not much money actually, as I said above most of the cost of printed media goes in printing, paper, distribution and waste (about 25% of all printed media is unsold and gets pulped). The web changes all that totally, and at the same time expands revenue opportunities with the ability to do other things that print can only dream of. It's an infinitely better medium.

Its going to take a standardised format for micro payments to make it happen.

Before that happens, several different types will come along, one will ultimately prove dominant and destroy/absorb the rest - along the lines of Mastercard/Visa/Amex.

Big ask though, probably 10-20 years and news publishing will be dead long before then.
Click to expand...

Sure, we're some way from a universal micropayments system. But my point is that the technology exists, the consumer demand exists, as does the ability and will to supply from media providers. It will happen some time in the next several years, and when it does I suspect it will accellerate rapdily. But it will happen for sure.

I think you and I are talking about slightly different things though, two halves of the same coin. I'm not looking at news specifically, but the changing shape of a new media landscape. The immediate problem for news reporting, as I see it, is the consumer demand for video clips rather than stills. It's a damn shame IMHO, but there it is and obviously, video doesn't look too good in a newspaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top