A media "consultant" has some answers for the ailing newspaper industry:
Tim Rutten, in a column in the Los Angeles Times, dismisses the notion of a government bailout of newspapers as "a wretched idea," and I agree. But he asserts that it would be acceptable for the government to grant newspapers the same antitrust exemption that was given to organized baseball in the 1920s.
He writes that so long as some newspapers provide free access to information, "nobody can risk charging for theirs." With an exemption, newspaper companies could collectively agree on how prices should be set and then "begin imposing them simultaneously."
Actually, it would already be pretty difficult for the government to claim any monopoly status over the newspaper industry. No one really thinks newspapers have undue market control over their product: information. In fact, their woes can be traced in large part to the proliferation of alternate information channels. So let them collude away! And yeah, while I'm not the DoJ and can't unilaterally make that declaration (if that wasn't painfully obvious), I doubt there'd be any political will to bring in the monopoly busters while the newspaper industry lies bleeding on the ground.
Another proposal for rescuing the nation's embattled newspapers involves putting them in the hands of nonprofit foundations. This probably would be a stretch, since a large newspaper would need an endowment of billions to fund a significant level of journalism, and even small newspapers would need many millions.
Well, if the point of bringing in non-profits is to rescue the bloated carcasses that pass as "newspapers" these days, then sure. It's unworkable. But as I've already argued, why should newspapers cover sports when that's already capably covered in umpteen other outlets? Do they need to pay for David Broder's column? Do they need AP wire? Do they need a style or celebrity or business sections? A theater or architecture critic? Of course not. And once you pare a news operation down to its proper niche, the size of the operation can be much smaller, like Voice of San Diego.
Sure, it won't mean big money for Gannett and the rest of these industry-destroying execs, but that's certainly not anyone else's problem. Screw them.
Therefore, I propose what I immodestly call "The Morton Plan" for saving newspapers. I call on all you publishers to decide individually (to ward off the antitrust folks) to charge for Internet access to your newspaper content: Offer your readers the choice of getting their paper online, with the advantages of expanded information and search capabilities, or in print for the same price. A modest premium would give them both. Charge advertisers the same for online or print space, based on print's current cost-per-thousand for advertising.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. First of all, let them all decide this in collusion. Doesn't matter. It'll be equally stupid and unworkable. First of all, people won't pay for what they can get elsewhere for free, and most of what papers offer can be gotten for free elsewhere. Furthermore, the reason that online advertising is cheaper than offline advertising is that 1) offline advertising was overpriced, and 2) there's more than enough inventory online that advertisers can reach their intended audience for very little. That reality sucks, and it's one that this (advertiser supported) site has to deal with on a regular basis, but it is what it is. Advertisers have realized that they no longer need to be gouged by newspapers, and there are plenty of deals to be had online.
I mean, did this genius consultant think that newspapers weren't already trying to charge the same for online and offline advertising? That they were all waiting for his genius suggestion to slap themselves on the forehead and say, "Egads! Why didn't we think of that???" Online ad CPMs are plummeting, and in a bad economy, with desperate publishers everywhere willing to undercut the competition's rates, things are going from bad to worse. These things happen in recessions/depressions.
Throw in the fact that this stupid plan would require hundreds of newspapers to band together to shut off their content, it's clearly unworkable. Many (if not most) would balk, mindful that the local TV sites and other local and national news outlets would soak up that readership rendering them instantaneously irrelevant. Not every newspaper exec is arrogant enough to think their product is irreplaceable or so unique that people couldn't live without.
So the solution isn't to simply say, "we're going to charge more -- both advertisers and our readers." Well, it's a solution, it just won't be the winning one.
(Another way to respond to this "plan" is the Atrios model -- merely snort in derision.)
Update: Atrios adds:
[T]he reason why I do snort with derision at these things it's often clear that journalists writing about how to save their business model have zero understanding of what their business model is, and have so much contempt for the people who are trying to pay the bills that they don't even bother to talk to them about it. Let's just charge more for advertising! Someone tell the ad sales people to get right on that!
If my business manager came up to me and said, "I have a great idea for increasing revenues -- charge more for advertising!", I'd punch him in the face.
Comments are closed on this story.