Back in 1993, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s popular column, which was published by the Miami Herald and syndicated widely. In the course of tracking down the sources of unlicensed distribution, they found many things, including the copying of his column to alt.fan.dave_barry on usenet; a 2000-person strong mailing list also reading pirated versions; and a teenager in the Midwest who was doing some of the copying himself, because he loved Barry’s work so much he wanted everybody to be able to read it.
One of the people I was hanging around with online back then was Gordy Thompson, who managed internet services at the New York Times. I remember Thompson saying something to the effect of “When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but because he loves you, then you got a problem.” I think about that conversation a lot these days.
Continue reading.
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspapers. Show all posts
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Clay Shirky On The Collapse Of Newspapers
He writes:
Labels:
internet,
journalism,
media,
newspapers,
technology rules
Sunday, February 22, 2009
More Ideas About Saving Newspapers
Mark Cuban ponders how newspapers might be able to survive in the digital age:
Update:
On a somewhat related note, the Freakonomics blog at the NYT has a great discussion of micropayments as a means of monetizing online content:
Update II:
Cory Doctorow also has plenty to say on this subject:
Here is a hard cold fact of the internet age. Any content creator whose sole business is selling their content al a carte will have a hard time surviving. In a world of unlimited digital choice, the cost of creating and marketing content that generates a profit is expensive and difficult. Which is exactly why the successful sites have been aggregators.
Its also exactly why newspapers are having a hard time making it. They sell papers 1 at a time. They sell home subscriptions one at a time. When they charge for monthly subscriptions online, they sell them one at a time. That’s a tough business.
Its not that the newspaper content is not worth it. The problem is that it requires prospective buyers to first value the content, then decide whether they want to go through the hassle of going to a newstand, calling the home delivery department of the paper, or putting in their credit card information to buy online. This may be beyond a solvable problem when much of the same content is available online for free.
Continue reading.
Update:
On a somewhat related note, the Freakonomics blog at the NYT has a great discussion of micropayments as a means of monetizing online content:
The notion of micropayments — a pay-per-click/download web model — is hardly a new one. But as a business model it hasn’t exactly caught fire, or even generated more than an occasional spark.
Lately, however, the journalism community has become obsessed with the idea. This is what happens when an existing business model begins to collapse: alternative models are desperately invented, debated, attempted, rejected, etc.
Continue reading.
Update II:
Cory Doctorow also has plenty to say on this subject:
Let me start by saying that I like newspapers. And let me say further that, no matter how much I like them, they just might not have a future.
The Internet chews up media and spits them out again. Sometimes they get more robust. Sometimes they get more profitable. Sometimes they die.
Continue reading.
Labels:
internet,
media,
newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)