1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The secret meeting your publisher might be attending today

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by 2muchcoffeeman, May 28, 2009.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    I'll let James Warren of The Atlantic spell it out:<blockquote>"Models to Monetize Content" is the subject of a gathering at a hotel which is actually located in drab and sterile suburban Rosemont, Illinois; slabs of concrete, exhibition halls and mostly chain restaurants, whose prime reason for being is O'Hare International Airport. It's perfect for quickie, in-and-out conclaves.

    There's no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, "will facilitate the meeting."

    One hopes it displays the same sense of purpose as, say, troubled world leaders did at Yalta in 1945 or, in a rather less respectable sector of the economy, beleaguered mob bosses did at a legendary Apalachin, New York, confab in 1957. …

    That first session is followed by "Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to license that content that (sic) online aggregators" (the assistance of at least one of the many copy editors sent packing by the attendees might have been sought).

    That presentation would seem quite important, with many conflicting ideas floating about whether charging will work and how to even try. The stark reality is that the industry will have to soon start demanding payment for at least some of its online handiwork. </blockquote>http://tinyurl.com/p3sbuj

    'Bout damn time.
  2. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    I work for one of those chains and we are going to an online pay model for at least two newspapers in the fall.
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I will predict that going to a pay model will do nothing to slow the steady flow of job cuts.
  4. NDub

    NDub Guest

    Information like this is nice to hear but it's not stopping me from getting the fuck out. Sorry.
  5. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    I will predict that going to a pay model will make things worse when online visitors ignore the sites in droves to get free content elsewhere.

    If they don't read the paper, hear their "local" news via radio or television and you're going to start charging for online content they've gotten for free for years, they'll just quit your site. CNN, Fox and other free sites will be the beneficiaries.

    I'd like to see them try it, though, just to see how it turns out.
  6. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I just pray that Twitter isn't involved in these discussions.
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I absolutely agree that newspapers/mags ought to charge for content online, and I've always believed that.

    But I don't understand how they can expect to collude and not face price-fixing legal problems. Surprisingly, it is illegal for competing businesses to conspire to charge for what was once free. At least that's my understanding of the law.

    They should charge, but it's stupid that they have to convene about it. It's just asking for trouble.
  8. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    In Chicago... and no Tribune.

    All you need to know.
  9. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Ahhh. "Antitrust counsel" was riding herd at the meeting:

  10. thesnowman

    thesnowman Member

    Is the general public so stupid to believe that they can ingest the same quality of journalism via television/radio/websites that they can via newspapers? Yeah, it's a rhetorical question but it's a bit idealist and elitist as well.

    I am part of what I will term the "new guard" (journalists 30 and under), and I empathize about 97 per cent of the way with the so-called old guard. But to dismiss all new media as the death of journalism is also a little ignorant. This conference won't likely find the solution but there is a good halfway point to be found. I just hope I'm around when it is discovered.
  11. TwoGloves

    TwoGloves Active Member

    From the "so-called old guard": Percent is one word.
  12. ScribePharisee

    ScribePharisee New Member

    No and that's probably not the point. It's to pad the pockets of company board members who are getting a little testy because they haven't been able to update to the newest Farrari and, good god, they had to do their own laundry last week.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page