Like anyone else concerned about the state of journalism, I have spent my fair share of time trying to figure out how to make news gathering in the digital age profitable. It has to be profitable, in my view, or no one is going to do it long term.
A recent quote from the CEO of Google caught my eye in that it seemed to sum up how traditional journalism got to the state it is in. “The revolution is never led by those in power.” Until recently, the leadership of what we call the main stream media had no incentive to make Internet news delivery work. Yes, there are exceptions and at the very least many of them talk the talk, but in the end why would a newspaper publisher or broadcaster take any steps that would render their expensive capital investments in printing presses, delivery systems and broadcast facilities worthless. It would be bad business.
It appears the mainstream media kind of tricked itself into this Internet quagmire. When the Web began to take off, everyone wanted a Web site, whether you needed one or not. If you were in the news business, not having a Web site showed you were out of touch. Not modern. There was trepidation at first, among newspapers in particular, about putting their expensive news content on the Web. If we put it on the Web for free, why would anyone buy the paper? That obvious question and its obvious answer was for some reason overlooked as top media executives concluded — almost unanimously — that the only way to succeed in a Web-based world was to embrace it completely, or perhaps more accurately, allow it to swallow you whole.
Think back to the early 1990’s. What if the newspaper industry had instead concluded that the only way you are going to access the content we produce, at high cost to ourselves, is if you pay for it? Would we be witnessing the same decline?
It appears the scrappy Journal Inquirer of Manchester is about to find out. In mid-April it announced it will no longer give its content away free on the Web. And why should they? If you ran a doughnut shop you wouldn’t make any money giving away free doughnuts. The JI is placing a bet on its product and better journalism may be the result. If the paper is going to succeed using the pay-per-view model, the content has to be worth paying for. Instead of destroying the paper’s assets to cut costs, the JI may have to invest further in its news gathering capabilities to keep and grow its audience.
It is not by accident that one of the most successful paid content sites is the Wall Street Journal. The paper offers a distinct, high-quality product that a specialty audience is willing to pay for. The JI is about to learn whether that model works at the local level. Perhaps what they will find is the real problem; no one wants local news.
Meanwhile, at the Hartford Courant, the state’s largest news gathering organization is also taking steps to survive by merging forces with WTIC-TV. While the Tribune properties say they are not considering asking users to pay for Internet content, the move to combine the different disciplines of print and broadcast news gathering could result in a superior Web product.
No one knows where all this change will lead, but I do believe where there is an audience for news, there will be somebody who finds a way to make money delivering it.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is vice president of public affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
