In recent years, we’ve seen the Internet portrayed in many different ways: an information superhighway, a means of satisfying the global thirst for knowledge, a pathway to freedom.
For most of us though, it’s been a way to get things for free that we used to pay for: Got stamps? Don’t need them, I’ll pay online. Going to the record store? Nah, just going to download it. Newspaper subscription? I’ll read it free online. Wait, WHAT?!?!?
Those things still cost money to produce. An odd side effect of all of this that we become indignant when asked to pay for things.
This issue is coming to a head now due to the launch of the New York Times paywall, and the merger of Huffington Post and AOL. In each case, we see interesting examples of how both old and new media companies are trying to create business models that work in an increasingly web-centric world.
As someone whose profession revolves around the media, I’m fascinated by these unfolding efforts. On the one hand, we see a respected, old-line media company trying to convince customers to pay for something that they had largely become accustomed to getting for free. On the other hand, we see a promising, but still relatively new, player that is trying to vastly reduce the cost of its media content.
Here’s the part that really fascinates me: How do the content producers feel about these efforts? Freelancers at AOL recently received an email informing them that their services as a freelancer would no longer be required. They were, however, invited to contribute as a part of their non-paid system. I have a pretty good guess about how the former AOL freelancers must feel – I know how I would feel if my employer decided that my career should be viewed as something more like a hobby.
But what about the NY Times writers? Many of them have spent the better part of the past 15 years as beneficiaries of one of the broadest and most respected distribution platforms in the world. Now they are, in essence, being told “Stand behind this line while we pull the curtains.” Suppose you were an up and coming columnist who is just starting to feel that your writing was being noticed and creating new opportunities and then, well, we have to wait and see.
How will all of this play out? Everything being equal, I would prefer to be paid for my work. But we have seen examples where web writers have turned a labor of love into what seems to be a lucrative career. What do you think? Would you rather have the solid platform with an employer that might limit your exposure? Or would you rather take a chance on a non-paying platform turning into something more lucrative?
To reach Donna:
Phone: 212.584.5479
Email: donna@blisspr.com
Twitter: @donnamcsorley
04/07/2011 at 4:26 PM Permalink
Terrific post, Donna. I’m a soon-to-be-graduating journalism major, so this is a topic that comes up frequently in both coursework and professional experiences. Speaking from my experience thus far, I think I’d favor a Huffington/AOL-type situation a bit more, primarily for two reasons.
First, technology is constantly evolving, and the industry needs to keep evolving with it. We need innovation in our attempts to deal with a changing field, not stagnancy. The Internet has taken us into an increasingly ‘free’ world. Yes, it’s a bit chaotic, but until companies start to embrace that chaos, they’ll never learn how best to deal with it and find a model that works. We’ve seen a similar reluctance to take chances and evolve with the music industry as well, and look how that’s turned out! While I obviously hope the New York Times doesn’t meet the same fate as did the major record labels, I’m not sure they’ll be doing themselves any favors in the long run by taking this paywall approach.
Secondly – and this is strictly me speaking as a student, so I know it won’t be a universally applicable point – embracing the Huffington/AOL model, an enormous change for some, wouldn’t be too much of a change at all for young journalists coming right out of college. Obviously, it’s a bit disconcerting knowing that we may have to pursue the field we spent four years studying – not to mention, paid four years of tuition TO study – as a hobby, like you put it. But in a way, it’s exactly what we’ve spent the last four years doing. Think about it: we go to class, we socialize, some of us work part-time jobs, we study…the actual in-field journalistic experience is rarely a student’s entire life, but rather one aspect of it.
Under this model, how much would that really change? Sure, our other time-filling methods would differ (class and studying would obviously need to be replaced by part-time or even full-time work to support ourselves), but journalism would remain in our lives in the capacity to which we’ve grown accustomed – which might actually keep us comfortable with our work and our abilities in ways that a drastic, “journalism-becomes-my-entire-life” post-college change might not. It’d be exactly the same environment we’ve had over the last four years. Plus, as you point out, there’s a chance that by taking this approach and remaining dedicated to it, we might be able to turn it into something lucrative.
I understand that my second point may not be a universally acceptable one, given my lack of full-time, professional journalistic experience – and if people want to take it with a grain of salt, I understand. I guess in the end, what I’m saying is this: I feel that there will always be a place for journalism. We just need to find the right way to get to that place – and only by taking chances will we do so.