J-school students, like publishers, refuse to pay

The so-called Media Diet includes 2.5 hours a day of reading/viewing the news. (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

Here’s one of those stories that ranks high on the “duh!” factor, at least in my opinion.

Those of us addicted to our computers and smart phones have been there before. We come across an intriguing story slug or headline tagged in that familiar shade of “click-me” blue. And so, we click.

And then the frustration mounts!

“I have to pay for this?” you ask yourself. “No way!”

And so you move on.

Apparently some journalism instructors have taken to asking their students if they would pay a nominal amount of money for access to Facebook. While some agree that a buck a month might be acceptable, none of the students were willing to pay any amount of money for access to news media sites. I’m the same way. The quickest way to send me in another direction is to demand I pay to read an online newspaper.

But why? After all, if I want the print version of a newspaper I know full well that I’m going to have to pay something. Or maybe it’s that I’m not willing to pay at all for any version of the news.

Who pays for what?

There’s a grand irony as I see it, and it’s contained in the quote attributed to a newspaper publisher in the story linked to above. Apparently the newspaper publisher incredulously believes that he doesn’t need readers, certainly not the college-educated, upwardly-mobile reader with a disposable income. Pssst! Don’t tell that to his advertisers or shareholders!

Even more telling is how this attitude will become painfully apparent to these budding journalists when they discover that their paychecks don’t have the disposable income sufficient to cover the cost of the online subscriptions they already refuse to pay, especially once they learn the reality of economics and discover that the rent is due before they eat! The sad fact throughout this 20-year long discussion within media circles regarding the shift towards electronic publishing is that the very people tasked with writing the stories that are supposed to engage and attract readers have seen their pay increase less, on a percentage basis, than has the federal minimum wage, during this same period of time.

Yet this arrogance seems to be popular with publishers and even some editors. Oh, they won’t say that, but it’s apparent in the “just get it out the door” attitude of newspaper publishing. Who cares what’s in the newspaper, as long as the sales staff is relatively successful?

Content… Content… Content

The problem with this attitude is the reader (you know, those people who advertisers hope see their printed sales pitch in the morning newspaper) are leaving in droves, taking with them the advertisers that pay the bills. While to a certain extent it seems that the newfound lack of income must be made up somewhere, publishers seem dumfounded at the unwillingness of readers to subsidize what for more than a century has been subsidized by the advertiser. Lost in this incredulity is the notion that the free market will simply not support something that has no intrinsic value.

As a reader and a consumer (and a J-school grad), I’ve long-since lost the willingness to pay for information that I can find for free in so many places. Moreover, I refuse to pay subscription rates for information, even that information that I can’t seem to find elsewhere, simply because I have determined that it ultimately has no value to my life. I’ve even stopped watching television news programs in part because I don’t trust them to provide me with useful, and in many cases, truthful information.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a service or a tangible product, consumers want to feel as if they’re getting something of value when they elect to exchange their hard-earned money for something, whether it be a piece of electronic gadgetry, a new car, or a form of media.

Amazing as it is, people are still willing to part with their income. One need look no farther than Apple, Inc. to see a shining example of how one company has found a way to create value and extract large sums of money from consumers. Newspaper publishers could do well to learn this if they expect to revive their dying publications.

Related articles

• Global Newspaper Publishing industry: Forecast to generate revenue of $170.5b in 2012 (nextlevelofnews.com)
• Will The Newspaper Industry Save Itself By Reinventing Online Advertising? (adpulp.com)
• As newspapers cut, analysts ask if readers will remain (nextlevelofnews.com)

You may say that I’m a dreamer: I’m not the only one

The Golden Gate Bridge recently celebrated its 75th anniversary and stands as an icon of California’s once-golden economy.

It’s been a couple years since I fled California. The lack of jobs chased me from what I think should be renamed “The Tarnished State.” California is certainly not golden anymore, not in the economic or political sense.

So when I read the Facebook comment of a fellow conservative the other morning, I had to chuckle… not at her, but at her comment.

Happy for Wisconsin, not so much for California…..Feinstein, Waxman, Waters, Stark, Schiff, ugh. Really, again, Cali??? For a state full of ‘artists & dreamers’ you certainly don’t have much imagination when it comes to politicians. Apparently the majority of voters are perfectly happy paying insanely high taxes, having businesses move to other states, paying almost $5 for gas, maintaining one of the worst public school systems in the US, etc etc. At least the weather’s nice…sigh.

A couple words in her comment caused me to ponder. California has typically been known as a state chock full of artists and dreamers. After all, Hollywood exists there. Aside from that, you can’t travel far within California without coming across an art gallery or a book featuring the gorgeous and diverse landscapes that cover over half of America’s left coast.

What is it about the vast majority of voters in California who seem stuck in the rut of failed feel-good political policies? Has California lost its ability to dream big?

I’m not talking about $68 billion bullet trains or other stupid, costly ideas. After all, isn’t California also home to the Silicon Valley and ideas that started companies such as Apple and Microsoft? Maybe California’s proposed bullet train wouldn’t be such a colossal example of stupidity if everyone who wanted to in the state was employed or otherwise engaged in the creation of ample amounts of private capital that could be taxed at a reasonable rate so as to support a limited government bent on perpetuating the advance of more private capital. It’s rather ironic that a state that is tens of billions of dollars in debt and over-extended in spending can even consider adding four times its current budget deficit in additional debt for a bullet train through the world’s most productive agricultural land, but I digress.

Where’s California’s imagination for the next great private equity start-up that could once-again make it one of the world’s top 5 economies? But maybe that’s not the best first question to ask. After all, there are those who still live there who remember voting in a recall election to oust a governor who was blamed for skyrocketing utility rates, even though California boasted the worlds fifth largest economy at the same time. Now, two governors later the state has sunk to the 9th largest economy in the world and is still trying to convince its remaining residents (20-some percent of which do not work and are therefore not capable of paying taxes to fund such ventures) that the problem is that Californians aren’t paying enough taxes!

Why, with all the talent, intelligence and ingenuity — just think big dreams — in California do voters continue to elect people with a proven track record of stifling, stealing and suppressing those dreams? Where’s the motivation, desire and foresight for bigger and better, or has it already fled for other states where their elected representatives don’t tax and regulate those dreams out of existence?

California once had several very large (albeit public) projects going on simultaneously, the product of dreamers who accomplished things seemingly insurmountable. One of those projects just celebrated its 75th anniversary of completion and still stands as a picturesque icon that proves that big dreams, matched with skill, ingenuity and foresight, along with the political will of the people, can accomplish great things.

I don’t think all is lost for California, though it sure seems like it at times. All it will take is the political will of the people, dreaming big, and of a limited government, bending to the will of the people and their dreams, for a greater California where ideas aren’t taxed and over-regulated beyond their ability to be realized.