The Hush-Hush Meeting That Could Have You Paying For Online News
Right this minute, executives from the largest newspaper companies in America are meeting in a hotel outside of Chicago to discuss how to “Monetise Content.” Is this the first step towards a (necessary) industry-wide move to charge for online content? And, uh, is this legal?
The Atlantic’s James Warren has all the details of the meeting—organised through the Newspaper Association of America—of “more than two dozen” execs from companies including the New York Times Co, Gannett, McClatchy, the AP, and Hearst. The daylong meeting has several sessions, all focusing on how dying newspapers can squeeze some money out of their popular, but money-poor, online products:
That first session is followed by “Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to licence that content that (sic) online aggregators” (the assistance of at least one of the many copy editors sent packing by the attendees might have been sought).
Back in February, we endorsed this plan, sort of: “So here’s what newspapers need: some collective action. What if, say, the 100 biggest papers in the nation all started charging for online access at once? That would make it much harder to track down quality news for free.” The main problem: any collective decision on the part of the biggest newspaper companies to start charging for online content, for the good of one and all, could easily be construed as illegal collusion. That’s not allowed in a good capitalist society such as ours. Of course,
1. Having this meeting through a trade group is a convenient way for the companies to cover themselves;
2. We don’t know exactly what’s being said (If you have details, please email us). And,
3. We’re not lawyers, but we imagine that the companies would have to be terribly blatant in their collective decision-making to give some proof of actual illegal collusion, rather than simply companies in a threatened industry making rational business choices.
But this all makes sense. The meeting has received scant publicity. Most newspaper companies aren’t in a position to just throw their content behind a pay wall, because readers will just flock elsewhere, as long as free news content is out there. It will take all or most of the quality reporting to start charging (one way or another) roughly at once to give the weaker companies a chance. For most newspapers, continuing to give away all of their content for free is no longer a viable option. So…we’ll wait and see what happens.
[The Atlantic]
- Next Post: News Corp. Aims To Renew Its MySpace Deal With ‘Parasite’ Google »
- « Previous Post: Paris Hilton Inadvertently Describes Self When Trash Talking The Hills
Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)
Can the music business please have this meeting?
If CNN, NBC, FOX, et al are not in the room I've got bad news: everybody goes to those websites for news anyway. All the NYT offers me is proprietary columnist content. They can keep Sir Flatness and his 'stache, thanks.
So, in effect, we will be left with truthiness.
depardoo
This is their surest path to obsolescence, but then...what choice do they really have?
Actually, it's taking place in Appalachia, NY.
daveyjonesisdead
This will never work because activists or advocates for one side of the news or another will always give you their version for free, so you just read both sides, cancel the differences, and what is left is near the truth.
It's sort of like cold war algebra.
Rather than paying for content, the Boston Globe will seek reimbursement by having a reader keep a union member busy with odd jobs for the rest of the day.
People pay and will continue to pay for Consumer Reports, Bloomberg, Cooks Illustrated, etc.
And people can go other places for product reviews, financial information, recipes - it's just that people are willing to pay for the actual specific content that these businesses provide.
It seems to me that if people aren't willing to pay for access to a specific NY Times article, either per use or via subscription, than that article has no value to them. I can't imagine that newspaper companies imagine that they have such monopoly control over information that they can make their content more valuable. They just make themselves less valuable to their government/business/pr/political sources, and so get less content, and so publish less, etc.
Pinch can't wait for later on when they get to the "Burn Through Capital as Quickly as Possible" team building event later on.
Query whether it would be illegal for them to agree to charge a fee so long as they did not agree on the price.
depardoo
@Mount_Prion: C.U.C.A.R.A.C.H.A.: Yeah, because I haven't gotten twenty emails about it.
Are we sure this isn't just the Mediabistro Circus?
@Preopsician: I think they're staying at the Watergate.
Forbesian
Wish I knew the hotel. Am in Rosemont now.
Preopsician
@once: espn.com for sports and local tv news for dog rescues - so we're covered :)
@RStewie: First, please supply some more specific citation or explanation for your legal contention (simply capitalizing "anti-trust" doesn't count). Second, the response to an anti-trust investigation would be: "Want to prosecute us? Fine. Once most of us go under this country's primary news source will be Fox." I don't think much will happen under the Obama administration.
Moriturus
@misslinda: Wow.
"What if, say, the 100 biggest papers in the nation all started charging for online access at once?"
Well, offhand I'd say that since I don't visit any of their sites for free, I probably wouldn't do it then either.
Easy.
@depardoo: agreed. A common business model is not collusion. A price schedule is.
@skahammer: really, it's more fun to watch the labels run around like noodles with their hair on fire as they realize that, thanks to their own greed the past few years, they've managed to even the playing field again, all by themselves.
k122n
@Nic Fit: They did. It's why they started cooperating with iTunes. Back in 2004, the interns at RCA (including myself) met with whomever the pompous president of that company was for a feel-good luncheon. After he prattled on about his glory days with Springsteen and Jagger, he went around the room and asked what the last cd we bought was. When he got to me, I told him I had not bought one in a long while because I got my music free from Napster. Horrified, he asked why I would do that rather than buy the CD. I told him I would gladly pay a dollar for a song, but rarely did I ever want the entire CD, so until the music industry started rethinking the way that they distributed music, I would continue to download only the songs I wanted for free. He yammered on about mini discs or something of that sort, but I held strong--a buck or two per song was what I wanted, I didn't want the crappy "b-side" he was packaging with the hit single. Sure enough, a couple of years later, Bertelsmann cut a deal with iTunes--a buck a song. So basically I saved the entire music industry. You're welcome!
@once: and we'll get a balanced view of the world. So I can see how the government might be against this.
daveyjonesisdead
Everyone should just start reading British news, BBC online, etc (international coverage is better there, anyway)but then we'll miss out on sports & area dog rescues
once
Actually, this IS illegal if they're talking in any way about money (which I think must be a given, considering the topic is "monetizing content"). It's called Anti-Trust, and just because they're at a "trade group" meeting doesn't mean it's not illegal and that they shouldn't be investigated.
RStewie
@daveyjonesisdead:
They're not all that different, Apalachin and Rosemont.
Well, Apalachin is probably cleaner these days.
The slam on Rosemont was uncalled-for. They know.
belltolls
@Preopsician: Motel6. They'll leave the light on for ya.
@Nic Fit: There isn't enough cocaine in the entire Western Hemisphere to sustain that meeting beyond opening introductions.
I used to work for a membership association that had antitrust trouble. It is not pretty. I feel the pain of the industry- seriously- my husband's newspaper was shut down in March.
The sad state they find themselves in does not mean they get to violate the Sherman Act just cause Mr. Jr VP can't afford his place in the hamptons anymore.
BTW-
violation of the Sherman Act is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a $1 million fine for individuals and a fine of up to $100 million for organizations...