Many are turning to paywalls for a solution, including Postmedia, Sun Media, The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Managers think it will highlight the value of their content and allow them to compete for readers.
But if Felix Salmon is right (click here and here), perhaps they should think again. He sees paywalls as part of an old-media culture that still hasn’t come to terms with what is really new about new media — and where its real value-added lies. I agree, at least, insofar as political journalism is concerned.
Old media is based on broadcasting: Newspapers, radio and TV transmit content to large audiences, who are relatively passive receivers of it in the sense that they consume this content but don’t produce it. Broadcasting also allows advertisers to use these channels to send a message about their products — and they are often willing to pay handsomely for the opportunity.
When political journalism first turned to new media, managers appeared to assume the business model would be the same, though they generally agreed that content would have to be free, at least for a time. This would encourage readers to leave old media and move online, which, in turn, would attract revenue from advertisers, most of which were expected to migrate online from old media.
Things haven’t gone as planned. Although readers are moving online, advertising revenues aren’t following them in anything like the volume predicted. In addition, thousands of small players have sprung up, who compete for available revenues — often using free content from the bigger ones.
The paywall is supposed to fix this by injecting a heavy dose of realism into the market. Supporters think it will produce revenue from subscriptions, starve the small players of content, consolidate the market and let the survivors capture a larger share of the advertising revenue.
But if the argument sounds reasonable, it fails to appreciate just how much new media changes users. It isn’t passive like old media. It creates a dynamic and interactive space where users not only access content but, increasingly, participate in creating it — especially when it comes to politics.
Being able to comment on a blog post or tweet about a political speech is the thin edge of the wedge. Before long, users want to see a response to comments, then a personal response to their comments, and, eventually, to be part of an ongoing conversation — hence the spectacular success of personal blogs, Facebook groups and Twitter hashtags, such as #cdnpoli.
Fans of the paywall either don’t seem to get this or aren’t impressed. They don’t see participation as part of their core business. For them, journalism is about providing content, not engagement. And given the revenue shortage, they are convinced there is room, at best, for a few big players and a slightly larger number of small ones — much like the networks and specialty channels on cable TV. In this view, online journalism is due for a shakedown and the paywall is about to make that happen.
But this is only part of the picture. While content certainly matters, increasingly, so does participation. It is a defining feature of new media, the value of which is just beginning to surface — and the demand for it is growing exponentially.
Perhaps the best evidence for this comes from journalists themselves and, in particular, those on the front lines of new media. They are the canaries in the coal mine and their role is already being transformed by new media.
Political journalists such as @kady, @acoyne or @susandelacourt are widely recognized for their skill at accessing content from across political cyberspace, pointing their followers to it, and helping them learn to use it to engage one another. As a result, they have attracted tens of thousands of followers who not only look to them for content, but also for online leadership. (Full disclosure: @susandelacourt is my spouse and the views expressed here are my own.)
But here’s the hitch: Journalists like these can only provide this kind of leadership if they and their followers can access and share content from across cyberspace. Content must be able to circulate freely, be shared, commented on and changed.
This, in turn, requires a robust network of sites and tools so that more users can find the content, people and quality of discussion they need to engage.
A full-scale paywall is a huge obstacle to this. It greatly restricts such access and, in the process, hobbles the ability of these journalists to engage their followers.
So, while “rationalizing” the system this way might look like a solution to the revenue problem, the benefits are likely to be short-lived and the damage extensive. The progress on participation could be stopped in its tracks and, along with it, any chance to reap the dividends.
If participation really matters, the paywall must go. Or, at the very least, the boundaries around it must be drawn in a way that allows the political content needed for engagement to flow.
How, then, will political news organizations make money? The elements of a new business model are emerging, based on these core ideas:
participation is a defining — and rapidly evolving — feature of online political journalism;
the growth of online networks and communities reflects the growing demand for participation; and
journalists play a pivotal role in building these networks and communities.
In this new model, news organizations should be encouraging their journalists to develop the skills to recruit followers and build highly-engaged, online networks and communities. At the same time, these organizations should be focusing their full attention on turning this kind of leadership into a revenue stream.
The first step is to recognize that content is not their only product. They are now also in the business of providing a new kind of service: engagement.
The question media organizations should be asking is how to get these followers and online communities to start paying for these services. As Salmon argues, this will require some innovative thinking and approaches, but there is lots of evidence that people want the services and are more than willing to pay for them.
Finally, I should at least mention that this kind of participation also produces more informed citizens and a healthier, more robust democracy. This, in turn, makes the new journalism far more than just a service: it is a public service. That raises a whole new set of arguments about why this model is right for the future — but I’ll leave them for another day.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Don Lenihan
No comments:
Post a Comment