https://twitter.com/ErikWemple
And Wemple's follow up column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/09/04/jeff-bezos-and-the-internets-aggregational-appetites/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/09/04/jeff-bezos-and-the-internets-aggregational-appetites/
What points/quotes stick out to you and why?
And commentary from another aggregator:
The Post is famous for its investigative journalism. It pours energy and
investment and sweat and dollars into uncovering important stories. And
then a bunch of Web sites summarize that [work] in about four minutes
and readers can access that news for free. One question is, how do you
make a living in that kind of environment? If you can’t, it’s difficult
to put the right resources behind it. . . . Even behind a paywall
[digital subscription], Web sites can summarize your work and make it
available for free. From a reader point of view, the reader has to ask,
‘Why should I pay you for all that journalistic effort when I can get it
for free’ from another site?”
I think the situation involving newspapers, aggregators, and pay walls is a fairly complicated one that, as we have seen, has yet to be figured out. I understand why newspaper publications such as the Washington Post and LA Times are pushing the pay wall movement for their online content as less and less people each day actually buy a printed copy of a newspaper. So instead of falling behind, it is smart of them to embrace the online media world as that is where the majority of people today get their news content from. The thing is, the majority of people online are probably not on board with having to pay for content since they can just view news for free via aggregators and other free news sites online. So like Wemple's column suggested, I just don't think the answer for newspapers in terms of attracting more readership is the establishment of a pay wall; in fact, that is probably driving more readers away. So what is the answer to helping newspaper become more relevant in today's media world? I'm not so sure, but maybe ditching the pay for content idea and instead being more a lot more ad driven? Whatever the decision, if any, I am curious to see the direction what direction newspaper companies will go in the near future and if they can become a major player in the media world again.
ReplyDeleteAs the article mentioned, the web has reached a state where a credited news source can publish a story and that story can be released on multiple free websites in just minutes. Because readers can see the Post's (and other publications') work on other sites so quickly, I agree with Scott that a pay wall is not a practical solution. I sat in on a Post meeting two years ago and listened as editors attempted to adapt to the changing industry but had no definitive solution. If the content remains free, at least viewers will be accessing the Post's site, as opposed to others, increasing ratings and advertisement views.
ReplyDelete