Comments on: Crossing the newspaper chasm: Is it better to be funded by readers?

By: ger320

ger320 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:11:08 +0000

A very worthwhile article. The NYTimes should join with PBS, and then be funded like the BBC. We must stop corporate control of the news and messaging.

By: Mirko Lorenz

Mirko Lorenz — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:10:26 +0000

Yes, being reader supported might mean to become smaller. But couldn’t we find a way that such reader payments lead to reliable, trustable news/information services that are bigger than what we have today?

Newspapers specifically think more about how to repair their crumbling model, but the don’t think enough about what could be of value to readers.

My take: Focus on data services, where the individual reader gets clear, personal answers – helping him to “see” the effects of a decision clearer. Prime example of how such data-driven services could look like is the “Rent or buy” calculator, created by the New York Times.

By: san diego fiber installer

san diego fiber installer — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 04:16:41 +0000

What happens when cable tv becomes a la carte and people only buy espn for example? They no longer have news channels, and that may help prop up some of the newspaper sites ad revenue youd think. Also, as ad revenue declines, news sites/papers will go under and the equilibrium point will be reached where there is some type of profitability. Once tablets are more commo.place who knows maybe news consumption will increase…

By: postprintsachav

postprintsachav — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:29:31 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with advert free media spaces. The quality of the journalism produced within that kind of space could certainly benefit.
In Australia, our print newspaper industry is struggling (like most other countries), but perhaps because we are a smaller country/industry the discomfort of the digital news shift seems more apparent, bewildering even.Especially in the last two months.
The introduction of online paywalls on our general news mastheads is a necessary step our industry needs to take, unless newspapers take-up government subsidies, a concept that is believe it or not being discussed and considered.
So for the Australian situation, reader-funded newspapers or news looks a lot more positive for journalism and our society than government funding.
Thank you for your article!

By: aepxc

aepxc — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:14:06 +0000

With advertising’s share of economic activity set to continue to see strong declines (as the value that advertising can deliver to businesses is a function of how expensive information is to create, distribute, and filter), the number of industries that can afford to have advertising as their main source of revenue will continue to fall as well. This is not just a problem for print journalism. When it comes to journalism, however, if readers (watchers, listeners, etc.) are unwilling to make up the shortfall brought about by such a decline, the value of journalism to most people must be lower than what it was previously imagined to be.

By: Carl V. Natale

Carl V. Natale — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:36:32 +0000

Here’s the rub. Newspapers aren’t exactly known for their customer service. This can spell doom for papers with less sophisticated circulation departments.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:27:25 +0000

That’s an interesting idea, Tim.

By: cnahr

cnahr — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:10:51 +0000

FT and other financial news services have nothing to worry about since a subscription is effectively an investment for their (wealthy) readers. With general newspapers like the NYT things are a lot murkier. Likely their reader base will shrink dramatically — on the other hand, so what?

People who refuse to pay for a digital NYT subscription demonstrate that they see no value in it, compared to what they can get for free. So it stands to reason that the NYT either did not in fact provide any news whose loss society should mourn, or that equivalent news are now available elsewhere, or that the lost readers merely consumed them as interchangeable entertainment anyway.

By: tim

tim — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:00:46 +0000

Last I heard the wealthiest 10% of the US population control more than 80% of the wealth. Any sort of subscription model is fighting for a piece of that other 20%, competing with food, shelter, etc. Conversely, an advertising model can tap into investment dollars being spent to create demand for new products. I expect we will soon have reserve subscriptions where producers pay consumers to consume content and use products.