Oh, yeah, and: So would I pay for the NYT online? I still have a job in the media and get to expense my subscriptions; I don’t count. Once we all start losing our jobs, there goes another guaranteed revenue stream!
These are the final words of James Poniewozik’s current post at Time.com. Everyone knows traditional print media is having a hard time attracting revenue for their online content; he searches for answers by asking readers if they would pay for online access to the New York Times. But his final comments in the article, jokewise or not, already seems to say it all.
Firstly, he circumvents the question of whether he himself would pay for access by saying he already gets it for free for work use, so it’s moot to ask him the same. It’s one of those classic situations where if someone avoids answering a pointed question, you know what the answer is. (You know what I’m talking about.)
Secondly, he insinuates that if all journalists lost their jobs, you couldn’t expect them to pay for access then either. But as journalists in that very line of business, shouldn’t they, moreso than anyone else, understand the value of news and keep online access a priority for themselves? Even if they are cash-strapped?
This underscores the third and final point: people don’t avoid paying for news online because they only want free access, they have avoided it because money is a limited resource and news is one of those things that is the first to get crossed off the list if only for this simple fact: it is easier to get news for free than cell phone service and cable TV, and this is what drives consumer behaviour. The revenue models the New York Times is now exploring seems to incorporate this state of affairs about its product; it is most worthwhile for them to continue exploring options and alternatives until they hit that magic number where the cost is equal to the perceived value for the consumer.
Filed under: News and Media
