http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all
Section 1:
He is comparing the two together both newspapers and internet, discussing the fact how the internet is free but if we all think about it and come across together more people will be enticed to purchase the newspapers.
Section 2:
There is a discussion about newspapers revenue, and is questioning the fact that readers identify the immediate digitized version as superior, but pay nothing. Therefore, if many people have it as a norm to read the times on a daily basis, those who want a desire for the product will pay for it. If it's not free any more. So it could possibly be argued that newspapers cannot completely be dead.
Section 3:
This section is very promising as when the newspaper industry started to use the website they valued the free internet and acknowledge that it is advertising for newspapers. He discusses the beginning of a new revenue stream for newspapers. He states that if done properly, readers can be 'induced' to accept an online subscription to a newspaper. He uses a good example: 10% of 210.000 Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, would represent about $2.5 million. Even though 10% of the many thousands pay for it, this still amounts to a high revenue for the newspapers. He has the vision and states if someone dreams it it can happen in a sense.
Section 4:
In this section he considers the outcomes and positive results for when the two newspapers 'the times' and 'the post' go ahead and build 'that wall'. In addition, there was reassurance that they can risk going behind the pay wall without the local readers getting free national, international, and cultural reporting from the national papers. He continues by adding that if the news is revolved around the cover state and local issues, sports, and finance this would generate enough revenue to maintain a slip and paid 'metro desk'.
Overall, I believe that what he's arguing about is correct to a certain high extent. As he realistically compares between the two newspapers and internets. Clearly he is for newspapers and is in favour with them. As it's the 21st century internet is heavily rising up very fast and this is becoming very stressful for the newspaper industry. But this man is very positive about the newspapers and strongly believe that newspapers cannot die immediately as if they work hard and for example, change the way it is this may create a new wider mass audience. An interesting example he used was the fact that newspapers can change the front covers and revolve around the entertainment industry. This would entice the audience especially the younger audience who would generally be more willing to pick up the newspaper just to read about there favorite celebrities. As for example, the newspaper would be in color. I believe, his argument is correct and it can work if people are willing to. They can save money by not using as many journalists and step-up their revenue.
Finally, In my own opinion I agree to a certain extent that newspapers need to put online content behind a pay wall in order to survive. As this technology is increasingly very highly when the latest news comes on the TV and they're showing a live footage usually, in most cases it's a mere human being filming the footage through it's telephone device. The journalist can't be everywhere at the right time and right place. Different people experience different things because they are in that right time frame. Therefore newspapers generate money by using that footage or image. It doesn't mean to say that journalist will come to an end. Because, to be honest many newspapers are read by thousands each day when they commute to work or school and with advertisers increasing the newspapers are earning there revenue successfully. Therefore it's not crucial for the newspapers to form a payroll because only the loyal consumers which in the article would be 10% would pay for the subscription. However, I don't believe it's a necessity to have payroll's as they already generate from advertisers which in color would be very high paid. As older people would be more likely to pay, they won't be satisfied as the newspapers content are revolved mostly around celebs as they want to attract a young mass audience. But this is becoming frustrating for the older consumers who are fed up and don't want to pay to read about fashion. If they would have pay roll the journalists should come up with very in depth brilliant stories that would entice the audiences to pay and read the pay roll subscription otherwise it would be a waste of time for those who are willing to spend there money on newspapers as the internet is purely free to read the news on.
Section 1:
He is comparing the two together both newspapers and internet, discussing the fact how the internet is free but if we all think about it and come across together more people will be enticed to purchase the newspapers.
Section 2:
There is a discussion about newspapers revenue, and is questioning the fact that readers identify the immediate digitized version as superior, but pay nothing. Therefore, if many people have it as a norm to read the times on a daily basis, those who want a desire for the product will pay for it. If it's not free any more. So it could possibly be argued that newspapers cannot completely be dead.
Section 3:
This section is very promising as when the newspaper industry started to use the website they valued the free internet and acknowledge that it is advertising for newspapers. He discusses the beginning of a new revenue stream for newspapers. He states that if done properly, readers can be 'induced' to accept an online subscription to a newspaper. He uses a good example: 10% of 210.000 Sun readers, for example, who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, would represent about $2.5 million. Even though 10% of the many thousands pay for it, this still amounts to a high revenue for the newspapers. He has the vision and states if someone dreams it it can happen in a sense.
Section 4:
In this section he considers the outcomes and positive results for when the two newspapers 'the times' and 'the post' go ahead and build 'that wall'. In addition, there was reassurance that they can risk going behind the pay wall without the local readers getting free national, international, and cultural reporting from the national papers. He continues by adding that if the news is revolved around the cover state and local issues, sports, and finance this would generate enough revenue to maintain a slip and paid 'metro desk'.
Overall, I believe that what he's arguing about is correct to a certain high extent. As he realistically compares between the two newspapers and internets. Clearly he is for newspapers and is in favour with them. As it's the 21st century internet is heavily rising up very fast and this is becoming very stressful for the newspaper industry. But this man is very positive about the newspapers and strongly believe that newspapers cannot die immediately as if they work hard and for example, change the way it is this may create a new wider mass audience. An interesting example he used was the fact that newspapers can change the front covers and revolve around the entertainment industry. This would entice the audience especially the younger audience who would generally be more willing to pick up the newspaper just to read about there favorite celebrities. As for example, the newspaper would be in color. I believe, his argument is correct and it can work if people are willing to. They can save money by not using as many journalists and step-up their revenue.
I'd be glad to pay a subscription; hell, I pay subscriptions toward my TV bill to watch English football, and I would be glad to pay for my newspaper online as well. I don't work for free, why should any person think they should receive for free the work of tireless professional journalists? This whole internet fantasy has all the value and charm of a letter addressed to Santa Claus. Pay up, America, and grow up, too!
The reason NO ONE will pay for news is because print editors and reporters have killed the medium with their terrible writing -- "impacted," "presser," and "newser" are three horrid additions forced on the public lexicon -- and the fact that they didn't report ten years of wars, nor "reported" the financial and housing meltdown, nor are reporting on America's infrastructure crisis, nor will they report on healthcare.
But by Jove I can read in depth every time Sarah Palin empties her trash or another D-list celebrity dies from drugs or about Michelle Obama's latest fashion -- NONE of which any of us care about paying for.
Newspaper companies run a business, and businesses need to make money. They need to cut cost and/or find other revenue sources to stay in business. There are news websites that offer premium contents for paid subscription, such as Wall Street Journal. But a large percentage of the contents are free because there won't be enough visiting to generate any meaningful money through advertisements otherwise. In other words, free contents act as "search engine optimization" to bring in traffic from search engines as well as getting repeat visitors. Balancing the two (paid vs. free), with system in place to measure revenue and cost in real-time will separate the survivors and those headed for extinction.
Agree: he is in favor as rightly so the newspapers are a business which need to make a certain amount of revenue and they need to fund there costs through something or somewhere. He adds that the free contents act as 'search engine optimization' to bring in traffic from search engines as well as getting repeat visitors. He balances the paid and free and believes that the system in place measures revenue and cost in real-time. Therefore he agree's as pay roll system is a useful way to generate loyal consumers revenue. Finally, In my own opinion I agree to a certain extent that newspapers need to put online content behind a pay wall in order to survive. As this technology is increasingly very highly when the latest news comes on the TV and they're showing a live footage usually, in most cases it's a mere human being filming the footage through it's telephone device. The journalist can't be everywhere at the right time and right place. Different people experience different things because they are in that right time frame. Therefore newspapers generate money by using that footage or image. It doesn't mean to say that journalist will come to an end. Because, to be honest many newspapers are read by thousands each day when they commute to work or school and with advertisers increasing the newspapers are earning there revenue successfully. Therefore it's not crucial for the newspapers to form a payroll because only the loyal consumers which in the article would be 10% would pay for the subscription. However, I don't believe it's a necessity to have payroll's as they already generate from advertisers which in color would be very high paid. As older people would be more likely to pay, they won't be satisfied as the newspapers content are revolved mostly around celebs as they want to attract a young mass audience. But this is becoming frustrating for the older consumers who are fed up and don't want to pay to read about fashion. If they would have pay roll the journalists should come up with very in depth brilliant stories that would entice the audiences to pay and read the pay roll subscription otherwise it would be a waste of time for those who are willing to spend there money on newspapers as the internet is purely free to read the news on.
No comments:
Post a Comment