Take that, BOL! Google caves to the Murdochs of the world..

WT&...
*****
People want their news FREE, not because they are cheap but if you think about it, news is really nothing more than reporting events around the world. I wouldn't be surprise to see Twitter news becoming reality....Iranian's usage of Twitter is for more insightful than any news reporters could have done.
*****

HOLY CRAP! Are you serious? From those words, I take it that you think journalist who are in trenches, literally or figuratively, at worth as much as a person behind the counter of a fast food joint? In the vein of "I'd rather push a Chevy than drive a Ford" - I'd happily pay $ for a professional journalist than pay attention to the hype from some amateur...

Please, do explain those particular sentences. I think you're onto something, but I don't think it came out quite right... What ARE the 2-3 new business models that will fight it out over the next couple decades?

--Shalin

FREE news content has nothing to do with comparing journalists and "amateur" reporting. Definition of news is changing as we speak, new generation is not going to sit in front of TVs or hold a newspaper to consider something "news" worthy or paid a news site for "professional" reports.

FREE doesn't mean entitlement either. I have no idea where that came from...

That's the problem with today's entitlement mentality. People can want "free" all they want. Good luck with that. If someone --or some entity-- produces content to run a business or make a living, you would tell them "hey, you should be doing this all for free!"? Come on, get serious.

You do work, don't you? Do you expect to be paid for your services? Of course you do. News is no different. Unless you want to go out and gather it all yourself around the globe, be prepared to pony up. These individuals and companies are providing a service, just like any other service.

If you want to rely on Twitter for news, more power to you. But remember, these tweeters need to get their information from somewhere. Think about the aggregate amount of news information that's out there daily. You really think tweeters can provide that?

It's not practical.

(Most) newspapers are culpable for providing free access to news online to begin with. It is much harder to change the model when people are used to getting something free. But if enough content providers get onboard, the days of free news --as expressed in the totality of what's available currently-- are over.

You should really hope that these content providers are successful in charging for their product, because if they aren't, there will be many fewer voices and outlets with which to get professional reportage.

You are missing the change happening around you just like the newspaper industry... why don't you ask them how their business model is working for them? They have tried the fee model and failed miserably. They charge, people go else where. It's a simple and direct correlation.

At no point did I say journalists should work for free nor amateur reporting is better. All I'm saying is that news is changing and the old advertising or fee based business model doesn't work nor do they know how to make it work.

Elaborate on your perview of how news is "changing"; models.

Okay, obviously you are set on the idea the definition of "news" is changing. For convenience, we'll call it the "new news".

So with that, I've got some questions for you on how you see news changing. Honestly, I think this'll be very an interesting discussion/discovery of "news" vs "new news" consumers:

1) How or would a "new news" consumer differentiate "new news" from data, analysis, fact, opinion, commentary, rumor, or story?

2) In what priority does Gen X/Y and younger folks care about news, data, analysis, fact, opinion, commentary, rumor, or story?

3) Given a choice, would the the "new news" reader prefer to get news from an experience professional source or popular amateur source.

4) What are the leading forms of the "new news", who is producing it, and what are the dissemination methods (free, subscription, twitter, digg, etc.)?

5) Would a "new news" consumer pay, auction style, for better news similar to how we may pay for anti-virus?

Best,
Shalin

The Wall Street Journal is failing miserably with its fee model? I'd rethink that one.

Of course, as it stands now if there are fee sites offering an AP/Reuters story and a free site doing the same, obviously people will eventually find the free site. But if the industry and content providers actually get on board and make charging for content mandatory, there won't be too many ways to get around it.

That said, I do think the key to charging for content is to make the content something that is value-added to the consumer --something as others have said actually engage the viewer/reader over and above what some who/what/where basic story would provide. And, something localized or personalized (such as reaching a defined audience) so as to really make a difference in someone's life --things that a generalized news service just couldn't offer. These are things the WSJ does well.

Who knows what would have happened if the NY Times put up the pay wall on all of its content, vs. just the failed "Times Select". Same with the LA Times' approach.

Long Island's Newsday is now trying the fee model. We'll have to see how that goes. Newsday is unique in that there aren't many alternatives for Long Island-only print news. The NYC dailies just don't provide the coverage.

I think it's safe to say that you're not really sure what model would work, either. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that some model HAS to work, or the quantity AND quality of news as we now know it will be a huge casualty.

I read someone making an analogy of how bank ATM machines first came into being. When they arrived on the scene, there weren't any charges to use them. You might have needed to be in the same network, but other than that, grabbing money was as easy as finding the nearest bank. Then, things changed. Fees arrived. People groused (and still do). Restrictions on access were put in place without penalty charges.

Did people stop using ATM machines? Hardly. They might have been more selective, but when you need the cash, you suck it up and absorb the penalty. Some banks have seized upon this to reimburse customers who use other banks' ATM's. That's the marketplace reacting and providing a value added service. But it's safe to say that none of these banks has taken away every customer from the banks that still charge fees. Far from it. There was a paradigm shift in the model, and people had to accept it if they wanted to avail themselves of the benefits.

Apples to oranges? Maybe...and maybe not. The banking industry was united on this front, with very few exceptions; particularly the big players. What if the news content providers did the same?

But all they really are is a brand name. There are plenty of quality journalists out there willing to use an adverising model. Murdoch and NY times do not have a monopoly on quality journalists. And moving to a paid model is enough to kill off what a brand name gives you, people will turn to all the free altenatives that will prop up to take advantage of the empty market space. And the newspapers will have killed themselves off.