End of the Internet

No, that would have been the past by 1910.
Do you really think the Internet is not the future?

 

Let's go back to basics. 1. Supply and demand. Let's assume there is a consumer demand for information that is reasonably constant.
2. Information costs a lot of money to produce
3. If the Internet is the primary means of distributing information, but its users won't pay for information, and advertising can't support the information producers, then less actual information will be produced. The substitute will be opinion such as my own blog (market value to date: Not all I hoped).
4. After the drop in information supply, demand will rise. The willingness of people to pay for information will rise accordingly. And some form of information gathering and distributing business will become profitable once more.
The 5 Ws of the news business of the future remain unknown. The danger, of course, is that people with the ability to work in that business will die out as a species before the business model is created.

 

newspapers will not pick up internet revenue any more than the horse had a place in society after the model t.

 

Newspapers may not. Journalists will. There will always be a place for those who can find information and relay it accurately and succinctly.

 

Could you please point me to such a place? Because I'd sure like to work there ...

 

This is a great thread -- good discussion on an important topic.

I worked for a Rivals site for about a year and a half in 2004-05, covering a BCS school. Our company was unique in that we also published a full-color magazine about 20-24 times a year (which had been around for about 20 years before Rivals even existed). The magazine subscription was separate and the content was not supposed to overlap much.

I liked our model -- the Web would be for breaking news and quick-hitter stuff, as well as expanded photo galleries, audio of press conferences, on-the-spot analysis, etc. The magazine in turn had no game coverage except for one section in our Notebook area, which featured a summary of games played with detailed box scores, stats, full schedules with results, etc. The mag was loaded up with features, columns, notes, etc.

The goal was to have a "multi-dimensional" platform covering our school. The biggest problem -- We had a tiny staff (just two full-timers) and that job burned me out quick. I loved the idea of what we were doing but we needed about 3-4 more people on board to really make it go.

I think the same is true with newspapers today. No one is putting up money for a staff to do all the things, web and print, that might work to turn this ship around. And the more we cut, the worse it will get.

 

That is what absolutely kills me. There may be disagreements on this board about the way to improve the industry's trend, but I think we'd all agree it is not by cutting the product (through shrinking pages, trimming staff, etc.). All that does is increase the speed of the downward spiral.
If we bunch of idiots here can ALL see that, why can't the higher-ups?

 

like now?

 

When the idiots in charge quit killing this industry.
Even if newspapers die, there will always be a demand for our skills online or in some other capacity. It just may take time for the right people to take over.

 

Bing-fucking-o.

 

as now, it will "demand" 1/100th of our skills. the rest will be blogs.

if you can't make money, you can't pay money. i'm sorry the "next generation" doesn't give a flying fuck where its news comes from.

 

I disagree. They may not care where it comes from, but they do care whether it is accurate. We are more accurate than most blogs.
The cream will rise to the top.