No Music in That News
David Carr has written recently in the New York Times (reg. required) that newspapers might tear a page from the music-industry's playbook and push for (or develop on their own) an iPod-like news device, to bring themselves and readers boldly into the 21st century.
Carr argues that a digital newsreader or tablet will act as the iPod has, and help save news organizations from financial ruin: "As iTunes has demonstrated, there is a vast swath of consumers who are willing to pay for what they want and avoid the moral taint of unauthorized use."
But has Carr got it right?
A song on iTunes is unique and can, now, only be bought there or from another paying service, if the user wants to avoid prosecution. Many songs are still downloaded from free networks, of course, and young listeners would have continued to push up the popularity of Kazaa et al if the music industry hadn't unleased the dogs on them.
News, though, is not unique - the story that might cost me 99 cents on the Times' web site can be had, basically, on OhMyNews or Yahoo or some other site. There will always be free news online, grabbing (especially) young readers' eyeballs and ad dollars. Always.
Young readers have shown again and again that they no longer care for the reputation of the Times, or any other news source. They'll get facts from here, check them over there, read a friend's blog, and decide for themselves. They don't care for the key product characteristic of integrity behind a reputable news organization's story.
They will never pay. Give them a cheap newsreading tablet to try and get them hooked on paying for content, and they'll happily download free content to it all day and night.
The music industry playbook has clearly shown this: The only deterrent to free downloads has been the threat of prosecution. But there won't be any "illegal" news out there, so there's no deterrent.
Carr's model might work for older readers, but it's off-key for young readers. Here's a possible test of his thesis: How many signups for the new Times Select service are under 25?
Carr argues that a digital newsreader or tablet will act as the iPod has, and help save news organizations from financial ruin: "As iTunes has demonstrated, there is a vast swath of consumers who are willing to pay for what they want and avoid the moral taint of unauthorized use."
But has Carr got it right?
A song on iTunes is unique and can, now, only be bought there or from another paying service, if the user wants to avoid prosecution. Many songs are still downloaded from free networks, of course, and young listeners would have continued to push up the popularity of Kazaa et al if the music industry hadn't unleased the dogs on them.
News, though, is not unique - the story that might cost me 99 cents on the Times' web site can be had, basically, on OhMyNews or Yahoo or some other site. There will always be free news online, grabbing (especially) young readers' eyeballs and ad dollars. Always.
Young readers have shown again and again that they no longer care for the reputation of the Times, or any other news source. They'll get facts from here, check them over there, read a friend's blog, and decide for themselves. They don't care for the key product characteristic of integrity behind a reputable news organization's story.
They will never pay. Give them a cheap newsreading tablet to try and get them hooked on paying for content, and they'll happily download free content to it all day and night.
The music industry playbook has clearly shown this: The only deterrent to free downloads has been the threat of prosecution. But there won't be any "illegal" news out there, so there's no deterrent.
Carr's model might work for older readers, but it's off-key for young readers. Here's a possible test of his thesis: How many signups for the new Times Select service are under 25?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home