Google vs. The Telcos
Great article by Holman Jenkins in today’s Wall Street Journal regarding the emerging contours of battle between Google and Ma Bell’s progeny, whose strategy of upgrading the broadband pipes leading into homes might pay immense dividends in a streaming content world of movies-on-demand.
All Press is Local
Walter Hussman, Publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and scourge of free content, appeared at a luncheon on Thursday at Columbia Journalism School to push his argument that newspapers should not be in the business of giving away free content. Hussman contended that the decline in newspaper circulation has in large part been due to the media strategy of newspapers giving away their content for free. Consumers, being rational, got their news without needing to spend additional money.
Buttressing his argument with statistics from his experience of charging for content with the Democrat-Gazette, Hussman compares the success of newspapers who charge for content versus those who do not. The numbers are compelling. Expounding on his earlier column in The Wall Street Journal, Hussman made a strong case that newspapers would fail to offset revenue lost in declining print circulation with revenue generated from online visitors. Citing the Inland Cost and Revenue Study, Hussman claimed that newspapers generate between $500 and $900 in revenue per subscriber per year, versus $5 to $10 per unique visitor per year.
These numbers tell only part of the story. Hussman then compared circulation figures for the Democrat-Gazette with the Columbus Dispatch. The Columbus Dispatch and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette are the sole mainstream dailies in their respective markets, both of which are similarly-sized state capitals. The difference between the two newspapers? The Dispatch switched to a free content model on Jan. 1, 2006. In its first six months of offering free content, the Columbus Dispatch’s daily circulation declined 5.8%, compared with a loss of 0.4% daily for the Democrat-Gazette. This comparison reflects national trends for newspapers that have decided to offer their content for free. Under Hussman’s analysis, it is difficult to see why any newspaper would offer its content for free.
However, there are real world problems with Hussman’s analysis. Most notably, Hussman’s strategy seems to require either establishing a dominant market position on local news gathering (i.e., the Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock), or serving a compelling product to a niche with disposable income (i.e., The Wall Street Journal to financiers). No less a robust content provider than The New York Times felt compelled to abandon its subscription model, hemmed in by the reality that it is neither a commanding local voice nor a provider of exquisite niche content. The evidence cited by Hussman suggests two possible strategies for newspapers going forward: first, to leverage local market power on news by charging for local content, which is difficult for larger publications with a national focus to replicate successfully. Under this model, national news offered on web sites would be posted for free, as such news is easily found elsewhere. Second, if local market power is not lucrative or too difficult to attain (such as in New York City), then obtaining a special niche or specialty would be the preferred strategy, perhaps with a component of local news. If local news is niche content that people will pay for, then large city dailies without dominant market positions might consider purchasing the smaller neighborhood newspapers, establishing neighborhood dominance to leverage for paid readership. Without establishing some kind of dominant market power, a newspaper in a multi-daily metropolis would find itself compelled to offer free online content, as any price charged would be immediately undercut by its competition. And web content does earn some money for the newspaper. Just not nearly enough.
Hussman’s arguments harken back to the early days of the dotcom boom, when the conventional wisdom was to spend money to obtain dominant online market positions. Once obtained and with hard-earned goodwill, the dotcom would finally be able to earn a return on all of the capital initially invested. The logic worked out well for some (ebay and Amazon), but failed more often than not (AllAdvantage.com, anyone?). With control of the local Little Rock market and comparatively strong circulation, Hussman has found that it is good to be the last man standing.
Microsoft Buys Stake in Facebook
Besting Google in the process.
Critics of the leviathans Microsoft and Google might have a difficult time in determining who they should have rooted for in the battle to win a stake in Facebook: the semi-monopolistic Microsoft, so long considered the bane of smaller and more innovative companies, or Google, the dominant and innovative search engine giant that has been cited as having an “entrenched hostility to privacy” by Privacy International?
(Hat tip: Matthias).
The Hits Keep Coming?
This NY Times article details the enduring controversy regarding the number of online visitors to various websites. Naturally, the providers of online content count more visitors than the advertisers.
Would wonder whether a more effective metric would be to statistically isolate the effects of online advertising and pay for that? Could it be done?
Facebook Reaches Accord with New York Attorney General
Press release here. Facebook is widely used by my classmates at Columbia Journalism School for social networking and information sharing. I expect this will lead to new restrictions on the under-18 set, which could drive the fickle youth to the next hot killer app.
As far as I know, I have not been the victim of any online stalking, solicitations, identity theft, or threats of violence so concerning to Andrew Cuomo and his staff. Of course, I don’t look like a teenage girl, either.
Blacklisted Russian Security Firm May Sue for Libel
From Wired.com, a story about a blacklisted Russian hosting firm with alleged criminal ties threatening a lawsuit to be removed from the blacklist. In the past, organizations like Spamhaus would place companies who spammed and engaged in other disagreeable activity on a blacklist. Online service providers rely on these blacklists to help configure their spam filters, which then weed out e-mails that contain IP addresses of blacklisted companies. Unfortunately, these companies would then quickly find another IP address and begin their activities anew. Blacklist organizations quickly tired of this “whack-a-mole” game. Now, blacklist organizations will collect the IP addresses of hosting firms who don’t do enough to police their networks from spammers, and blacklist the entire hosting firm, which could hurt the innocent. With marketing e-mails caught in spam filters rather than proceeding to inboxes, placement on any blacklist is thus a big deal to both the marketers and their hosts. MAPS, a predecessor of Spamhaus, got into trouble for allegedly abusing this power. Russia apparently has a different way of dealing with spam.
Western Standard, R.I.P.
The Western Standard is out of business (or at least, the print business).
-
Recent
-
Links
-
Archives
- December 2007 (1)
- November 2007 (8)
- October 2007 (21)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS