E-Media Tidbits

San Francisco Chronicle Columnist David Lazarus recently suggested that newspapers ask Congress to protect their revenue stream.

The answer is, "No, you can't, unless you're The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times." and even the latter is (or was) considering dropping its paid-site approach.

No one wants the paid content you think you can sell. Every other newspaper that has claimed to have a "successful" online subscription product (in the U.S., at least) has, in my opinion, missed out on a huge opportunity for audience and revenue growth while kidding itself into thinking it had found the future -- with pennies for revenue instead of dollars.

RELATED RESOURCES

Get E-Media Tidbits as an RSS feed: * Copy this link and add it to your feed reader Subscribe to receive E-Media Tidbits by e-mail: * Sent Monday-Friday, 5 p.m. ET

(Someone, anyone: Can you please prove me wrong here? Or at least point out a newspaper that seems to have figured it out?)

...This is a long way of leading to the suggestion: Check out this this San Francisco Chronicle article wherein David Lazarus says newspapers should ask Congress for an antitrust exemption so they could then start charging, collectively, for their online content.

Good grief! What has this man been smoking?

First, what makes him think newspapers want to charge for their Web content? Many papers are making fabulous margins, on substantially growing revenue, with their Web sites as they stand now. Sure they want more / better / faster, but doesn't every company?

Second, how could newspapers go to Congress for an antitrust exemption regarding the Web? The last time they did something like that, it was to permit "joint operating agreements." That's widely regarded as a failure, although some analysts view it as a mixed success. And newspaper companies, notably Tribune, have had absolutely no luck winning an exemption from Congress or the Federal Communications Commission on cross-media ownership rules.

I could go on and on (and on), but this article just makes no sense at all.

Lazarus quotes Univ. of Minn. journalism professor Jane Kirtley as saying "The students I teach really do believe that everything on the Internet is theirs for the taking. ...Young people have been conditioned to believe that they're entitled to this content." To which Lazarus adds, "It's time for newspapers to condition them otherwise."

Let's see... Lazarus seems to be saying: "Young people don't read newspapers now. If they do at all, they read them online. So the best approach to reaching them is to close off our content and ask them to pay for something they now have little or no interest in." Makes no sense to me. But obviously it does to him.

Tidbits contributor Steve Yelvington observes, "Why would you think you can charge for something you can't get people to read regularly when it's free?"

(Thanks to Chris Jennewein of The San Diego Union Tribune for pointing me to the Lazarus article.)