Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

Old Media: Why the End Takes a Long Time to Get To

Jun 15, 09 | 9:01 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
Over the past number of months a consensus has formed among media companies trying to do business on the Internet that advertising alone cannot support their efforts: It must be advertising plus subscriptions. This view has been most vociferously propounded by Rupert Murdoch, who, to my knowledge, has never been on the Internet, and by Barry Diller, who hosted a conference at the headquarters of his company, IAC, in New York, last week and forcefully declared that someone had to pay.

This new view—pretty much the opposite of what advertising-obsessed traditional media used to believe—comes about partly because Internet advertising turns out to be worth much less than traditional advertising. (On the Internet advertising is accurately measurable, and in traditional media it is mostly not—meaning old media could wildly cheat its advertisers.)

Then, too, there is the recession, which means that even cheap Internet advertising is shrinking rather than growing. Also, there is the new and alarming view that advertising itself is an increasingly challenged idea (i.e., advertisers have become smarter than media people). And, finally, and most important, there's the realization that if traditional media companies don’t find a way to make more money online, which is undermining their offline businesses, well, then, traditional media people won’t have jobs (or empires).

In other words, there is no alternative but to charge somebody.

The only problem is that nobody knows how to get somebody to pay. For one thing, there’s no simple mechanism for online payments. And for another, there’s an entire Internet culture that includes consumers who are unaccustomed to paying, and competitors to traditional media companies who have no interest in charging.

The vast and probably insurmountable difficulties of getting anybody to ante up are clear to the traditional companies, but many, if not most, of the executives in those enterprises are taking the view that, while they may not know how to get people to charge, they will find a way—just because they have to find a way.

This is a Hail Mary pass. They’re looking otherwise at the end of a way of life—so why not hope against hope.

And partly it’s classic old-media thinking: Traditional media forms a tight monopoly, so if everyone in traditional media comes to want the same thing, well, then, it comes to pass. Of course, that monopoly has long since been broken—something Rupert Murdoch, not using the Internet, does not quite understand.

And finally, it is a process for so many of these guys of trying to run out the clock. Many people will keep their jobs through the next phase, failed though it will ultimately be, of making shareholders and partners and content makers believe that there might actually be a strategy and a way out of this intractable mess. Indeed, many will be retired before everybody concludes the traditional media game is done and the Internet people take over.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
13 comments
VIEWING:
 
ack
Jun 15, 09 9:46 AM CDT
Michael, take this a step further: What will happen as traditional media dies off? Who is going to do the detailed research, attend press conferences, contact sources, and so on -- all the things that the mainstream media does (and thus supplies new media with most of its content)? It seems clear that someone will have to pay something just to pay the bills of those doing the reporting! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jun 15, 09 11:46 AM CDT
Why so attached to the past? Old media wants to support an old cost basis, while new media is doing the reasearch, attending press conferences (or not attending those most-often totally meaningless exercises), and contacting the sources, for a lot less money.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
ahoving
Jun 15, 09 10:40 AM CDT
yes, the user will have to pay. if we let them choose HOW (but not Whether or What), it may make the transition easier. See http://www.PayCheckr.com Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
ack
Jun 15, 09 11:26 AM CDT
Which gets into some interesting issues. Why should I pay? Someone else will, and I can continue to get my news free, via second-hand sites if necessary. The problem is that the product in question is pure information, and is thus very, very easy to copy and spread. It's the same problem the music industry faces (and its handling of the problem didn't help much). Any information-only product is going to be relatively easy to spread, but news especially so. Unlike music or video or software, news is (mostly) plain text and hard to copy protect. Bottom line... well, sheesh, I don't know. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jun 15, 09 11:47 AM CDT
That's the point, the circumstance has entirely changed, so the way of doing business has to change--we can't just pretend that information isn't free, cause, like it or not, it is.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
ack
Jun 15, 09 4:04 PM CDT
Yes, the information is free (as in speech), but collecting it isn't. At least, collecting it professionally -- carefully and verifiably. Bloggers do a terrific job fact checking, delving deeper, uncovering new angles, but professional journos still rule the roost when it comes to the majority of the news we read.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
ahoving
Jun 15, 09 12:12 PM CDT
the system doesn't have to be perfect to generate nice revenue. there will be folks who would rather fork over a few bucks for the convenience of being able to access what they want, when they want -- and not have to search for it or pirate it. (kinda like i'm doing now for the NYT on the Kindle). consider the copying/pirating as free marketing. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader83082964
Jun 15, 09 12:19 PM CDT
Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader83092187
Jun 15, 09 1:43 PM CDT
I'm not sure the question is how to make money. There is money to be made, maybe not the same way it used to be accomplished by old media. It also may not be the large deposits into their banks. But micro payments to the actual content creators, who could see more money without all the middle men. We are seeing the tantrum phase, where they demand the world isn't fair and all their hard work is being undermined. aka.. my empire is crumbling. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Polaris
Jun 15, 09 1:44 PM CDT
The old media -- with the help of the government -- will take over the internet and begin gouging their customers as usual. I think this will happen when the government allows the telecoms to boost charges for bandwidth until the little guys simply can't compete anymore. Big capitalists also will use their ad budgets to reward their old-media partners and cronies while internet upstarts are forced out of business. It's already happening. Look at the Huffington Post, which started out as a bold new voice and became a sort of online Newsweek, complete with girly fluff. Meanwhile, the more ballsy Alternet and Raw Story are struggling to stay afloat. In our society the rich always win. Always. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
deebles
Jun 15, 09 2:09 PM CDT
What I find interesting is the sameness of the argument between two men with opposite experience. Diller dove into the Internet while Murdock has yet to dip a toe. That they both want to put a price on words that are finally as free as the society generating them has more to do with control. We became dependent on old media fact checkers in the mistaken belief that we were paying for depth and truth. As our own editors, we get free and freedom. For the conglomerates that have been spoon feeding us their agenda on our dime, these must be interesting times. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
deebles
Jun 15, 09 10:40 PM CDT
Well, thank God. As someone who gets paid to write fiction, this site has been the addictive equivalent of online poker. The thumb thing is like a drive by shooting. No words just disagreement:that is boring indeed. As I leave here forever minding the screen door you hope hits my ass, I say lose the thumbs: they're juvenile and petty. But, hey, it was free. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
adydas78
Jun 19, 09 10:27 AM CDT
I think the way advertising is viewed has to change. Simply, mass advertising, one way messages doesn't work anymore. Internet creates possibilities to targeted, interactive messages. This is the future of advertising. www.adriandascal.wordpress.com Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS