You missed the point here, the content is not free because you pay your ISP but because you pay it giving your personnal profile details. I didn't read anything about this but I 'm quite sure profile is the real value added.
Ryan Holiday
· 2 years ago
That's a good point. Internet-think seems to exist in a bubble where transaction costs don't exist--or at least, are not considered.
But couldn't you find the equivalent for reading the paper at home? "I'm paying for the table I set it on, the time I wait for it to be delivered, it's unreliability etc"
Tom Foremski
· 2 years ago
Maybe the ISPs should be paying the newspapers since without them fewer people would find the internet useful. It is a cable TV model...
Scott Karp
· 2 years ago
@Emmanuel, I haven't heard many free registration sites bragging lately about what a boon registration data has been to enhancing monetization. More effective, it seems, have been implicit methods of gather information about users, like behavioral targeting -- and search keywords.
@Ryan, that's a bit of stretch -- I can read a newspaper in the middle of a desert, but I can't user the internet without a digital device.
@Tom, that's a bit like Sam Zell's suggestion that Google and other search engines should pay newspapers for their content. Now matter how high the quality or unique newspaper content is, there's just too much other content -- and applications -- on the web to separate out the value with any leverage.
The problem with the cable TV comparison is that cable is still home mostly to content that's very expensive to produce -- while YouTube, blogging software, etc. has flooded the web with content that is very cheap to produce.
Howard Owens
· 2 years ago
I've been harping on this theme in my blog for nearly two years -- and a lot of people have told me I'm an idiot because of it.
In the old newspaper model, subscribers paid for distribution. Advertisers paid for content.
I think far more people realize this than some journalists are willing to give them credit for.
On the web, distribution of news (I'm not talking about creation, just distribution) is virtually nil on a per-reader basis, but the reader is paying slightly more than that to get web access to begin with. Readers are paying for distribution before they even get to your news site.
So many journalists, who continue to bemoan publishers "giving away" their content fail to get the basic economics of this reality.
The last mile is still the responsibility of the news consumer, not the publisher.
Leo Klein
· 2 years ago
I think this kind of arrangement is important to point out. It's true for all content providers -- not just newspapers.
I mean, how long before Encyclopaedia Britannica goes free?
At the same time, it's interesting that the ISP's think it's "their pipes" and want to make content providers pay yet more.
I haven't written about this for years and years but I'm growing to believe that issues of access and bandwidth are increasingly going to become fundamental questions for us to sort out.
I mean, in a networked world, if you're not networked, you might as well be dead.
Max Kalehoff
· 2 years ago
Great analysis, Scott. But it's by no means just news. Same for music, movies, games, social networks, porn, telephony, text and video messaging, etc.
Amrit Hallan - Content Blog
· 2 years ago
Back when newspapers were important (they still are but not that much) people had more time at hand and the Internet wasn't available. A good thing, at least I feel that way, is that online the newspaper content is available very conveniently through multiple devices. Any time you want to access news online, you can get it from hundreds of resources. Reading newspaper means just opening a new browser window and going to the website.
Personally, the biggest benefit of the declining newspaper circulation is environmental. So many trees are cut for newspapers all over the world. The more we access newspapers and magazines online, the less trees will be cut, at least for this purpose.
Henk Gianotten
· 2 years ago
In the report on free sheets (DM) the figures used are incorrect. US is 6%, the world average is 8% and Europe is 32 percent. And not the 50 percent mentioned. WAN (World Association of Newspapers) provides the actual information. figures of 2006 were released in june 2006. In spite of the wrong figures, free sheets grow and tackle a distribution problem.
Dan Greenfield
· 2 years ago
Your point about distribution is well taken, though putting net neutrality and bundling aside, I have seen the cost of Internet access drop in my years in the ISP business.
Though a little off point, your posting also made me think of television news. Is Face the Nation or World News Tonight free? I don't pay for the content, but what about the cost of my time to watch those commercials, let alone the television set and power bill and that ever rising cable bill? Makes me long for the days when all you needed was a pair of rabbit ears to get network news.
All Comments
But couldn't you find the equivalent for reading the paper at home? "I'm paying for the table I set it on, the time I wait for it to be delivered, it's unreliability etc"
@Ryan, that's a bit of stretch -- I can read a newspaper in the middle of a desert, but I can't user the internet without a digital device.
@Tom, that's a bit like Sam Zell's suggestion that Google and other search engines should pay newspapers for their content. Now matter how high the quality or unique newspaper content is, there's just too much other content -- and applications -- on the web to separate out the value with any leverage.
The problem with the cable TV comparison is that cable is still home mostly to content that's very expensive to produce -- while YouTube, blogging software, etc. has flooded the web with content that is very cheap to produce.
In the old newspaper model, subscribers paid for distribution. Advertisers paid for content.
I think far more people realize this than some journalists are willing to give them credit for.
On the web, distribution of news (I'm not talking about creation, just distribution) is virtually nil on a per-reader basis, but the reader is paying slightly more than that to get web access to begin with. Readers are paying for distribution before they even get to your news site.
So many journalists, who continue to bemoan publishers "giving away" their content fail to get the basic economics of this reality.
The last mile is still the responsibility of the news consumer, not the publisher.
I mean, how long before Encyclopaedia Britannica goes free?
At the same time, it's interesting that the ISP's think it's "their pipes" and want to make content providers pay yet more.
I haven't written about this for years and years but I'm growing to believe that issues of access and bandwidth are increasingly going to become fundamental questions for us to sort out.
I mean, in a networked world, if you're not networked, you might as well be dead.
Personally, the biggest benefit of the declining newspaper circulation is environmental. So many trees are cut for newspapers all over the world. The more we access newspapers and magazines online, the less trees will be cut, at least for this purpose.
In spite of the wrong figures, free sheets grow and tackle a distribution problem.
Though a little off point, your posting also made me think of television news. Is Face the Nation or World News Tonight free? I don't pay for the content, but what about the cost of my time to watch those commercials, let alone the television set and power bill and that ever rising cable bill? Makes me long for the days when all you needed was a pair of rabbit ears to get network news.