Where's the money going to come from to ensure we get our news?
Wilson- very much TBD. Rocky period ahead. Not just a revenue decline, also the decline of operationally leveraged businesses. It isn't necessarily that we have to replace 100% of the revenues of years past. What they need to do is "fill a wedge," a far more manageable prospect. Variety of ways to fill that gap.
Greenberg- Three business models: 1. Co-op model 2. Philanthropic/non-profit model 3. The way cable TV operates, pay for access.
Gearheart- Television advertisements. Much of their content relies on the fact that they have advertisers and sponsors. The television industry can relate less to co-op or foundation models. A decidedly for profit enterprise.
Gearheart states that the major place the money is going to come from for our news is television advertisements. This is yet another emphasis on the changing face of the media and how it is constantly being affected by our demands as consumers. As said, the television industry does not rely on co-op models and is most definitely for profit. It has an enormous staff on-hand, and the industry itself is huge.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is ironic that the ways in which the media oftentimes catches our attention is, in fact, through television advertisements. Not only are we receiving our news as a result of these sponsors, but as an added bonus we are entranced by the advertisements of our time, although television is now facing all sorts of competition from the web and its many forms of advertising.
It is interesting to consider the "funds" discussion alongside Sunstein's claim--made in Republic.com 2.0-- that "consumers are actually a commodity, often 'sold' to advertisers in return for money; it is therefore advertisers and not consumers who pay" (15). Had somebody approached journalists when the first newspapers were being printed, and asked what they thought of consumers being sold to advertisers as commodities, resulting in consumers having free access to products, they would most likely have been enrolled in the nearest insane asylum. How could such a model make sense to a rational person?
ReplyDeleteAs the panelists suggest, the future of media is not set in stone, and could surpass all expectations. It could be simple and straightforward, or could be a new business model--entirely unimaginable, or inconceivable at this point in human history. Whatever happens, we just have to step back, and let circumstance unravel as it comes.
I think A's point (Alastair, I'm assuming?) is an important one. Consumers are essentially a commodity, which on the internet means vehicles for the proliferation of page hits, comment counts, retweets, reblogs, etc. Advertisers has always been concerned with the "core demographic" they are marketing to, and I think the internet will allow them to be even more precise in their attempts.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is really good for gathering data. While a newspaper has a harder time figuring out who reads their paper, and what parts they read and when, a popular blog could easily sell to advertisers information on the geographic location, viewing history, duration of visit, searches, comments, and more of each visitor to their site.
Or take Facebook, which has find a way to monetize by displaying ads that are personalized to the user with information gleaned from their self-selected interests. If for example, you list a certain band as being one of your favorites, advertisers can use these keywords to show you promotions for local concert, new released, merchandise, etc.
But this personalization shouldn’t be restricted to social media. I think if new media begins to market itself not just as "old media published on the internet", but as an innovative lifestyle brand or personalized expression of the consumer, then it can really find a strong source of revenue. I think internet-based media should take advantage of its immediate and more interactive nature to advertise to consumers in a more relevant and targeted manner.
Well put, Alastair. I agree with the fact that the consumers are now the commodity in the new media marketplace. However, if we look at it from an ethical and not just a business standpoint, then we can't put the responsibility on the consumer to be the commodity. What I mean is that if the consumer of media is the driving force of that media, then we return to the question of censorship. In this consumer-driven world, media is censored by the readers or consumers of the media, rather than the producers. Don't we agree that professional journalists are more qualified to decide what is printed/produced? The citizens, although they might be the "commodity", will most likely not make the most responsible choices as readers, while a professional journalist would be more likely to make these responsible choices.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the question is if this model, wherein consumers decide what media is produced, is the right one. The reality is, that is the way the media works, and now I think we must ask ourselves how we can make the best of this reality.
ReplyDelete