To pay or not to pay? That's the question journalists have been asking themselves in an online maelstrom of theory, ideas and criticism in a broad array of think pieces (to use a term that may have reduced relevance today) have accumulated on the series of tubes lately.
The news business is suffering as it rarely has before, and news organizations missed the boat on the Internet. Now people are used to getting their news for free. But, people wonder, how can we get them to pay for our product?
While I've seen a lot of chatter from people in the business, I haven't seen the question posed to the people who have the ultimate choice: Readers. (Looks like the Times got quite a response about the idea, though)
So, readers/users/consumers, if you get your news on the Internet, can you see a way that you would ever pay for it? Would you fork over a subscription fee, as you might with a printed paper? Would you go for micropayments, a debit account for news? Do you support a non-profit model? How could/would you pay to keep your news organizations of choice sustainable?
It is a dire situation. Without adequate funding (from readers and advertisers), news organizations can't report the news in the ways that best serve the community. A lot of papers may die. Others will operate on a skeleton staff.
But the people who might actually pay for these things deserve a seat at the table. After all, if they disappear, so will we.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Alex, thanks for the link! But my post is the exact opposite of mere "criticism." If you give it a read (despite its length), you'll find that it's exactly what you're looking for.
http://networkednews.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/no-micropayments-maybe-charity-yes-freemium-news/
Josh, thanks for the catch. You're right...mere criticism it is not. Sorry to misrepresent your piece.
Post a Comment