The overwhelming switch from print media to online media has taken some of us by surprise. But for others, mainly those who use it regularly, it has come as no surprise at all. Getting the news online is easy and convenient and with the exception of a few sites, it won't cost you a dime.
Its not just the users that are experiencing greater efficiency in news media. Its also the news media companies that are drawn to the new online medium. Despite inevitable layoffs in the short term picture, it is essential for all the major media companies to make the switch.
While newspapers have historically been a main outlet for advertisers, their business model differs greatly from that of a news website. As David Carr wrote for the New York Times in October of 2005, "If a Web site achieves a growing audience, it simply beefs up servers and serves up more ads. If a free print product catches on, its publisher has to deal with beefy union delivery drivers and serving up more expensively milled dead trees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24carr.html?ei=5088&en=9e06049dbd12a91d&ex=1287806400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1130155683-O/Tu/SEnR1kvOnSdsrhRJw)
And its not just hard print news that is suffering. Sites such as Craigslist.org have nearly replaced the classified section of newspapers, allowing users to hone their online search rather than browsing through numerous tangible pages.
The main question is should we have to pay for what we read online? Many would argue that we already do in some form with the prevalence of advertising sometimes reaching the point of near annoyance. We often can't watch a news feed without first watching a 30 second commercial.
TV and radio have made copious amounts of money without charging their consumers anything. Why can't it work for online media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment