Stu Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The American Way! Get what others pay for And it is going to be the demise of America if we are not careful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 The American Way! Get what others pay for do you think DCP would be better if we all had to pay $10/month? I think it would be a lot worse and have hardly any posters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 do you think DCP would be better if we all had to pay $10/month? I think it would be a lot worse and have hardly any posters... You are comparing DCP (an online place for drum corps fans to banter, snarl, poke fun, and nothing more than a multi-thousand page Op-Ed site) to an actual news source with actual journalism; Really? I mean Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yep, the free viewer does have value, and it is to the advertiser who hawks their products so that you can get your 'free to you' news! And no deception is here at all; you want others to pay for operational costs of news services so that you can get 'free to you' news. Oh there's a deception -- it's the misconception that consumers are getting content for free. They're not -- they're selling themselves but someone else is reaping the profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Oh there's a deception -- it's the misconception that consumers are getting content for free. They're not -- they're selling themselves but someone else is reaping the profit. I disagree that most people are getting deceived; that would mean most people are completely obtuse. I contend that most people know they are selling themselves out, but they just do not care because 'to them' the illusion is far better than the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 And it is going to be the demise of America if we are not careful. This is absurd. I think what you guys are saying (you and Jeff) is that consumers of advertising supported news are leeches because they are getting something for free that others worked hard to create. Am I getting that right? And that this is bad for America? Unbelievable. The advertising model is a well established capitalist model in which viewers pay by buying products they would not otherwise have bought. The fact that their payment is not precisely predictable on a case by case basis does not mean it is not made. Granted there are bloggers who cut-and-paste news content, but I don't believe the percentage of news consumed this way is thought to be high. The problem the industry faces today is that there are somewhat less revenues in an online ad-supported model than in the old print model, but it is not so much less that the industry cannot survive, as the news industry themselves have (I think falsely) painted it. It has been just another painful adjustment in capitalism triggered by new technology. It's really ok. And I don't mind watching dancing bears selling detergent during news stories about war and famines, but I'm really not the death of America for doing so. Then again, maybe I misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 You are comparing DCP (an online place for drum corps fans to banter, snarl, poke fun, and nothing more than a multi-thousand page Op-Ed site) to an actual news source with actual journalism; Really? I mean Really? well, I was saying that DCP is a place where people go to get enjoyment / fun / etc (otherwise, none of us would be here, right?), yet we do not pay anything to come here. Perhaps we are getting that fun for free. Should we pay? additionally, perhaps you never go to the front page of DCP, but I doubt the people that run this site would agree it is "nothing more than a multi-thousand page op-ed" (that said, I never go to the front page either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) The problem the industry faces today is that there are somewhat less revenues in an online ad-supported model than in the old print model, but it is not so much less that the industry cannot survive, as the news industry themselves have (I think falsely) painted it. Somewhat less? Total advertising spending in printed U.S. newspapers is down by more than 50 percent since the peak in 2006. What took more than a century to build has been cut by more than half in six years. Newspapers were cheap to subscribers, and news on the web has been free, because advertisers subsidized the cost. Advertisers have fled in a million different digital directions. Yet the costs to report, edit, design, print and deliver the paper remain constant. Result: The staffing of American newsrooms has been cut by a third during the past decade, to levels last seen in the early 1970s. Another result: Rising print-subscription prices. Yet another result: the rapid construction of online paywalls at American news websites. News is not free to report, publish and distribute. Newsgathering on a marketwide scale is a massively expensive, labor-intensive, full-time job. It's just that, for several generations, advertisers have picked up most of the tab. Advertisers have up and left the table, leaving a greater share of the tab to be paid by the reader. Just about zero of which has anything to do with DCI and the FN. Edited June 5, 2013 by 2muchcoffeeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) ...The problem the industry faces today is that there are somewhat less revenues in an online ad-supported model than in the old print model, but it is not so much less that the industry cannot survive, as the news industry themselves have (I think falsely) painted it... This is part of the truth (though I think you underestimate pricing/revenue impact on the news business). The other part is access and aggregation. Aggregators like Google and Reddit have installed themselves unilaterally as the partners of the news producers. By aggregating the product of actual newsrooms like the Journal or your local paper, they're attracting eyeballs because they provide a service consumers value. In turn, they drive traffic to the news producers site where it can sell revenue too. There are two problems with this. One is the aggregator gets to split the ad revenue derived from the news (not specifically but generally) without investing a penny in its production (to be fair, aggregators do invest in the news distribution). Meanwhile, the news producer is left with a business deprived of its primary attraction to advertisers: a regular audience with identifiable (and usually preferred) demographics. Second, competition for ad dollars on the infinite Web drives rates down. The result is diminished and less valuable audiences for the news producer. The result is fewer ad dollars to invest in the production of news. News is being consumed more than ever. It's just not being consumed at the place where the producer can recoup full value for his investment. It's a spiral that points to a crash. HH Edited June 5, 2013 by glory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Well, that went off the rails . . . Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts