Not all masters of printing mechanisms are lost in the information age. Walter Hussman, publisher, of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has authored a interesting view on the battle daily newspapers face. His commentary was featured Wednesday on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and is entitled: "How to Sink a Newspaper: Free news for online customers is a disastrous business plan."
Among his points:
"Newspapers initially created their Web sites with the best of intentions. After all, newspapers are in the information business. And rather than fight the new medium, the Internet, why not embrace it? Wanting to be the leading information providers and thereby have the most popular Web site in the community, they posted all of their news online for free."
Click here for the commentary:
How to Sink a Newspaper
I'm not sure I completely embrace his model, but at least he is not following the "newspaper industry" pack.
Meanwhile, some of the old-line media stalwarts gathered in Las Vegas for the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference this week. They seemed ready to rattle their collective cane at new media.
One odd exchange, as reported by Kenneth Li of Reuters:
"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said. "They will lose this war if they go to war. The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."
Check the story out here:
Old media turns combative against new media
As for the Custer/Sioux nation reference, you decide which is heading toward a last stand and which seems like a nimble, lethal force:
• Time-Warner is a conglomerate that dates back to 1972. In the first quarter of 2007, Time Warner revenues rose 9 percent over the same period in 2006 to $11.2 billion. Adjusted operating income was up 19 percent to $3.1 billion
• Google was first offered as an IPO in 2004. In the first quarter of 2007, Google revenues hit a new company high with a 63 percent increase over the same period in 2006 to $3.66 billion. Adjusted operating income was up 39 percent to $1 billion.
Some good numbers all around, though Google seems surging. It just might be a weak metaphor...
More later,
Mark
1 comment:
As a consumer I really need to think about what I would be willing to do (or pay) in regards to reading news. I would never, ever pay for national or international news because that's free everywhere. But I wouldn't gravitate to my local newspapers website for that news anyway.
Now, if they provided in depth local news and breaking news I might part with some cash. I contend that if a tree falls on Main Street I want to see it on the local newspaper's website within 20 minutes.
If you dig a little further on the one link you will see that Reuter's is accepting news photos from John or Jane Doe. How does that work? They complain about readers getting content for free, do they get photos for free?
Post a Comment