When have micro-payments actually been used in any meaningful way? I've only seen companies complaining that they aren't viable. They were certainly quick to make the choice for me.
Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique.
This seems like more evidence of the thing we all already know... large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant.
I think it's wonderful that the NYT made a difference, but that certainly doesn't prove your point.
> original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose.
What percentage of their content are truly original, first-to-break stories? Really, be honest. Now how much of their content are fluff/opinion pieces, rehashes of the last month of stories, and info that has been 'repackaged and repurposed' from the internet? If you try to claim the larger percentage is the former, you're just being obtuse.
You're quick to defend traditional media, but you totally glossed over the other points I raised. It's obvious (based on your comments here) that you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't believe your employer (and others like it) are worth what they think they are worth.
Again, it's clear based on market force that the PUBLIC doesn't agree with you. If they did, you would have seen success in the methods you mentioned.
> Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access"
Whether you personally agree with me or not, the public is speaking, and they are telling you that your business model isn't worth what you claim.
It seems like you're arguing about different things. donohoe took issue with you saying the NYT isn't relevant, and you are stating that people's unwillingness to pay equates with irrelevance.
I don't buy that. Many new media sites don't even have reporters in the field - just lots of writers in a room that rewrite what these "legacy" orgs do. So if they disappeared people absolutely would notice, the connection just isn't apparent yet.
News costs money. And a functioning media is important to society. That people are not currently willing to pay for it doesn't mean that it's irrelevant, just that the correct business model has not yet been found.
For the record, my original comment never mentioned the NYT. I said, "large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant." donohoe responded with an article in the NYT that caused the NY governor to take action on something. At best, that illustrates that they wrote a good article. It does nothing to provide an answer to my original comment. So yes, I argued one thing, and he argued something totally different so that he wouldn't have to answer the tougher question.
> That people are not currently willing to pay for it doesn't mean that it's irrelevant, just that the correct business model has not yet been found.
Just like the MPAA and RIAA a decade ago, they have been fighting market pressure rather than taking the hint and changing their business models. They want to keep the same profits they received from their captive audiences of yesterday, and they don't understand that people don't need to pay historical rates for the vast majority of the information they offer.
If the NYT fits that description, then I would love to see a reason why my conclusion doesn't apply to them. They certainly aren't relevant because of their name alone, are they? So I would truly like to know what percentage of their content comes from the real NYT reporters in the field, versus internet research, AP feeds, rehashes of yesterday's news, etc.
Joe Q. Public certainly doesn't miss out when he avoids paywalls. He typically gets better (and faster) information through his RSS feed than he ever has by reading the NYT directly. They might offer a unique opinion, or an extra line from an interview, but it's rarely vital information. He's not going to pay monthly for the privilege of reading an article written by a 'distinguished journalist' when it's really all about the information, not the prose. So what does that leave? Exclusive photos? Infographics? Op-ed?
I really don't mean to imply that journalists who go into dangerous situations aren't worth being paid. They certainly are doing important work. But to imply that the ones employed by one news corporation are any better than the others is just silly. They are all witnessing the same event from different angles, and I now have the ability to see the situation from the eyes of ALL of them through multiple sites (often within hours), not just the one who graces my newspaper's front page every morning.
So in the end, they have built a business on being a person's sole channel for world news, but the average person has many many many more channels available today. If they don't change their business model (indeed, their entire way of thinking about news), they will become unnecessary, extraneous, pointless... irrelevant.
This does not come across as very well-informed. You are replying to someone who is talking about the NYT, which, whatever its limitations, is probably the best daily source of the thing we call "news" in the U.S.
You say that there is little unique content out there -- but this a false statement if we're talking about the WSJ and NYT. If you are talking about the web as a whole, then you've changed the subject, and you're talking about an unbounded thing.
Saying the NYT is irrelevant is also completely false. Endangered? Fearful? Sure. A mouthpiece for the establishment? Often. Caught in their own thought-bubble? Sometimes. But not irrelevant.
Information and quality analysis have value - this is obvious. Coming around the other way and saying that because publishers are failing to extract the value, that therefore the news has no value, is a fallacy. Markets can fail to price correctly for many reasons.
Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique.
This seems like more evidence of the thing we all already know... large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant.