News today that the New York Times is going to start charging for some content on its Web site marks a major shift in the structure of dissemination of news online for major media outlets.
We’ve known pay-for-content models for online news have been coming for some time. Though I love the fact that anybody anywhere can access great reporting at no cost, it’s clear this model is not going to be sustainable in the long run for newspaper companies. The actual printed newspaper is currently dying a slow (although rapidly accelerating) death, and newspapers are hemorrhaging money each year. Unfortunately, so are many other industries, causing the decline in advertising (both online and in print).
More and more people are not receiving any newspaper or magazine at home nor buying them at newsstands. People are getting their news online. And with the rise of e-readers, the physical newspaper is becoming more archaic by the day. As a journalism grad, former newspaper reporter and news junkie, I’m somewhat embarrassed to say that I don’t get any newspapers or magazines at home. I do pick them up on occasion, but I get the vast majority of my news electronically.
Newspapers have long made their revenue on ad sales, but that doesn’t appear feasible presently. Some of the lost revenue needs to be made up with subscription fees for e-news. The Times is reportedly favoring a metered system, where consumers would be asked to pay a membership fee after reading a certain amount of free content. A model that interests me the most is a pay-by-the-article structure, where you would register with a payment method and pay maybe 5-10 cents per article, similar to an iTunes model.
Lots of questions surround the concept of paying for online news content. After having content for free at their fingertips for so long, will consumers be willing to pay, or will they simply turn to television news and free blogs in increasing numbers? How will this affect the sharing of news on Twitter and Facebook, where an increasing number of people get their news from links shared by media outlet accounts and friends? Can newspapers survive the initial drop in online readership that’s likely to occur, especially if online advertisers begin jumping ship? Nobody seems to have a reliable answer, but I sincerely hope we can find one before we lose more good reporters to layoffs and good newspapers (in print and online) to bankruptcy.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
A case for Twitter and SM
When I get together with my extended family, there are certain constants. Absurd amounts of good food, for example (takeout or eating out; my grandma doesn’t cook, never has. She had Thanksgiving catered!). One of the new constants among many of my family members is making fun of me for my use of social media, especially Twitter (@seanathompson).
I’m used to being made fun of for any number of things by my family. My slenderness; my tendency to sunburn at the lake; my ginormous head size (though we all have that curse, not just me!). It’s just something my family does. We all have robust senses of humor. But the mocking of my social media use bothers me a little. Mostly because I wish they got Twitter and other SM the way I do.
I’ve tried to explain Twitter to them. But like most other people who make fun of us social media-ites: they’re usually not too keen on listening. It’s that kind of closed-mindedness that frustrates me.
Of course, this criticism isn’t limited to my family. I’ve heard similar sentiments at work as well. Twitter and SM haters think it’s a waste of time. They think that I and others merely post updates about what kind of sandwich we’re eating. They claim that nobody cares what I or even a celebrity is doing at any given time.
Of course, the only sandwich I will ever tweet about is the Crispy Buffalo Chicken Sandwich from The Vine in Iowa City. Seriously, it’s so addictive, it’s deep-fried crack (courtesy Matt Farrell). But I fundamentally disagree that even pure status updates are insignificant. I for one am interested in what my friends are doing or what celebrities are doing/thinking.
Especially for celebrities and other well-known people, Twitter is a revolutionary tool. Never before has there been a marketing and public relations tool that lets well-known individuals connect directly to their fans and the public at large. There’s fast becoming no need to use the traditional mediums to communicate with consumers/fans/casual observers. Even the media now does much of its reporting using direct tweets from celebrities and other well-known people. While using tweets alone is lazy journalism, it’s certainly valid to use direct-quote tweets as part of one’s reporting.
This form of communication makes fans feel more directly connected to their favorite celebs than ever before. Such use of Twitter is only expanding. Of course, there are those who are now becoming celebrities in their own right because they’ve mastered Twitter and SM and are communicating things that other SM users are interested in consuming.
The other well-propagated myth courtesy of Twitter haters is that the “pointless” status updates are its only use. Nothing could be further from the truth. I started using Twitter as a status updater. Now, I feel like I’m only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of its use for news and information gathering, communicating, networking and professional development.
I get most of my news from Twitter. And no, that doesn’t mean I’m getting 140 chars on each story. If you’re interested in something, you follow the link and read on. Rather than going to 20 separate news sites, I follow 20 news twitter accounts, and get much more information than I would otherwise. It allows everyone to be their own reporter (which for a former reporter like me is quite a nice fix).
And as a former reporter transitioning into the world of public relations, I have learned more about my new profession in a month or two by following fellow PR pros than I could have reading any single book. And so far I’m only reading a fraction of the blogs that I should be and hope to be. I’ve also found free webinars that I know are going to make me a better professional and will benefit my research lab. SM is to thank for that.
The networking comes naturally with the professional development. That’s an element I’m looking forward to taking advantage of more in the near future. I’ve found some awesome and inspiring young gals and guys doing really innovative things, and I want to become a more active participant in the conversation myself.
Ultimately, maybe I can’t convince my family members or anyone the many beneficial and exciting uses for Twitter and other SM. As friend and tweeter extraordinaire Adam Sullivan said (tweeted) to me, “The only people who don’t like Twitter are the ones that don’t get it.” I’m not convinced I fully “get it” yet, but I’m eager and excited to continue learning. I’m utterly convinced that Twitter (or something like it) is the future of media. So you’re only hurting yourself if you’re not at least attempting to get it.
To paraphrase Rick Clancy, the head of social media for Sony “the conversation is happening with or without you.”
I’m used to being made fun of for any number of things by my family. My slenderness; my tendency to sunburn at the lake; my ginormous head size (though we all have that curse, not just me!). It’s just something my family does. We all have robust senses of humor. But the mocking of my social media use bothers me a little. Mostly because I wish they got Twitter and other SM the way I do.
I’ve tried to explain Twitter to them. But like most other people who make fun of us social media-ites: they’re usually not too keen on listening. It’s that kind of closed-mindedness that frustrates me.
Of course, this criticism isn’t limited to my family. I’ve heard similar sentiments at work as well. Twitter and SM haters think it’s a waste of time. They think that I and others merely post updates about what kind of sandwich we’re eating. They claim that nobody cares what I or even a celebrity is doing at any given time.
Of course, the only sandwich I will ever tweet about is the Crispy Buffalo Chicken Sandwich from The Vine in Iowa City. Seriously, it’s so addictive, it’s deep-fried crack (courtesy Matt Farrell). But I fundamentally disagree that even pure status updates are insignificant. I for one am interested in what my friends are doing or what celebrities are doing/thinking.
Especially for celebrities and other well-known people, Twitter is a revolutionary tool. Never before has there been a marketing and public relations tool that lets well-known individuals connect directly to their fans and the public at large. There’s fast becoming no need to use the traditional mediums to communicate with consumers/fans/casual observers. Even the media now does much of its reporting using direct tweets from celebrities and other well-known people. While using tweets alone is lazy journalism, it’s certainly valid to use direct-quote tweets as part of one’s reporting.
This form of communication makes fans feel more directly connected to their favorite celebs than ever before. Such use of Twitter is only expanding. Of course, there are those who are now becoming celebrities in their own right because they’ve mastered Twitter and SM and are communicating things that other SM users are interested in consuming.
The other well-propagated myth courtesy of Twitter haters is that the “pointless” status updates are its only use. Nothing could be further from the truth. I started using Twitter as a status updater. Now, I feel like I’m only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of its use for news and information gathering, communicating, networking and professional development.
I get most of my news from Twitter. And no, that doesn’t mean I’m getting 140 chars on each story. If you’re interested in something, you follow the link and read on. Rather than going to 20 separate news sites, I follow 20 news twitter accounts, and get much more information than I would otherwise. It allows everyone to be their own reporter (which for a former reporter like me is quite a nice fix).
And as a former reporter transitioning into the world of public relations, I have learned more about my new profession in a month or two by following fellow PR pros than I could have reading any single book. And so far I’m only reading a fraction of the blogs that I should be and hope to be. I’ve also found free webinars that I know are going to make me a better professional and will benefit my research lab. SM is to thank for that.
The networking comes naturally with the professional development. That’s an element I’m looking forward to taking advantage of more in the near future. I’ve found some awesome and inspiring young gals and guys doing really innovative things, and I want to become a more active participant in the conversation myself.
Ultimately, maybe I can’t convince my family members or anyone the many beneficial and exciting uses for Twitter and other SM. As friend and tweeter extraordinaire Adam Sullivan said (tweeted) to me, “The only people who don’t like Twitter are the ones that don’t get it.” I’m not convinced I fully “get it” yet, but I’m eager and excited to continue learning. I’m utterly convinced that Twitter (or something like it) is the future of media. So you’re only hurting yourself if you’re not at least attempting to get it.
To paraphrase Rick Clancy, the head of social media for Sony “the conversation is happening with or without you.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
