Okey, so we’ve all seen the struggle the newspaper industry
has been facing over the last decade and a half, which is how to make money in
the digital world. Compared to traditional paper magazines, the pricing of
digital content isn’t as clear cut as deducting the cost of printing added with
the salaries of the journalists and operating cost of the magazine, divided
over the number of magazines sold. Of course even the old model isn’t as simple
as this, but the different components affecting the price you pay at the
newsstand for your morning paper are more evident and more easily discoverable.
When it comes to digital content the old approach doesn’t
really make much sense in a modern world. There’s not much incentive for me to
pay for news on one site if I can get the exact same news for free on another
site. Faced with this problem the publishing industry decided to go with either
of two different ways, free access to content supported with advertising revenue
or pay walls around the content. Arguments for and against both business models
have their supporters and so far no clear victor has risen. Where pay walls
might make sense for some publishers, for example highly specialized financial
magazines, they don’t make much sense as a standalone payment option for
general newspapers. It’s not that I can’t spare the few pounds a week it would
cost to get access to the news behind a pay wall, but it’s more on the lines
being fallaciously wrong. At this day and age, at the time of free information,
it’s just simply put wrong.
I’m not saying that publishers shouldn’t get paid and be
able to make profit, but the way they do it should be revised. Holding on the
old believes of what and how people should be charged for content has changed.
In an interview by ORGZine, author Neil Gaiman talks about the beneficial
effects he discovered piratism of his books had on their sales. Initially
irritated with the unlawful publishing of his books for free online, he later
discovered that it actually worked for him, especially in markets where he was
still unknown. Sales of his books took of after they were illegally translated
and distributed online. This discovery encouraged him to offer his latest book,
a book that was still selling well, free for one month on his web page. After
the experiment ended they discovered a 300% increase in sales of his books in
total. It was then that he realized that he wasn’t loosing money because of
piracy, but that people were actually sharing the books amongst their friends
who were then buying his other books and recommending them to their friends.
When asking audiences of how they discovered their favorite author, a rough 90%
of them said by lending a book from their friend. In his opinion he isn’t
loosing sales, he is advertising. He’s reaching more people and raising
awareness. “Nobody who would’ve bought your book is not buying it because they
can find it for free. “
So here is one example where embracing the freely
distributed content model works. Will it work for you or a large publisher like
the New York Times, that I don’t know. Nobody knows. There is no one clear
solution out there. What might work for one company could be out of the
question for another. The problems that the newspaper and music industry are
facing now, might be a problem that the movie industry will be facing soon. Of
course piracy is already an issue for them but the direction things are headed
towards might force them to search for new ways of making money. The same way
as the newspaper industry is seen as going either really cheap or really
expensive, might be happening in the movie industry by the end of the decade.
Just like the news industry and journalism aren’t going anywhere, neither is
the desire for entertainment. Only the medium of distributing and pricing it
is.
No comments:
Post a Comment