ColbyCosh.com

What are your thoughts on newspapers who are planning on selling subscriptions on Kindle type devices in order to develop a new revenue stream? Is this feasible, or is it going to end up just like IPods and music, where the hardware producer (Apple) makes all the dough while the content providers (the recording artists) are left picking up crumbs?

I'm of the opinon that bundling the "subscription" cost into some sort of service fee is the only way you'll get the middle class to pay for premium content, or content that they could otherwise get for free.

Well, sure. Because the middle class has never remotely paid the full freight for news in cash. And newspapers were fine with that; if they really cared about getting your quarter, they'd have discovered proper vending machines, which give out one paper for the price of one paper, 70 years ago.

If I go to a newspaper customer and say "So, you have to pay all our costs now because ad sales have gotten kinda dicey and oops we lost our monopoly on classifieds," he should do two things: 1) reply "Gosh, I don't remember getting that much of a break on the cover price when computers were allowing you to annihilate 97% of your production, secretarial, and library staff and most of your preprint expenses," and 2) kick me in the balls.

Ok its obvious youre missing the point of the whole thing here.
You need to ask yourself "WHY do more than one media outlet keep ranting about wanting to people to pay for news online?"
If the only answer you can come up with is "theyre greedy" then you need to go back to bed. The MAIN reason is: (drum roll here) COSTS! You and most other people Ive seen seem to think that news grows on trees, as well as money. It doesnt just cost to keep the website going, the main costs are in the corporation as a whole. You think the journalists, the commentators, the equipment, the taxes, fees, etc and the overhead in general are all free?
Simply putting a link to an advertiser (which hardly anybody clicks on) will not cover all the costs involved. Also saying that they get their money from TV etc.(other sources within the company) doesnt fly either. EACH part of a corporation needs to cover itself financially, or it will bring down the company as a whole. Like say if you have 2 chain stores in a town failing, but the 3rd is doing really well,it would still put you in the red until you close down the 2 that arent doing well. This is all basic economics. We obviously need to go back and re-learn about the free enterprise, free market system. Not sit around whining that everything should be handed to us for free, or at someone elses expense. Businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY, not wait on us hand and foot, providing services barely at cost or at their expense. Im just shocked that they didnt start making people pay from day 1. You know why you dont pay for the news/ programming on the(regular)TV? Advertisers. If they didnt exist, youd have a card swiper on your TV (or at least a new tax added into your paycheck) faster than you can say "Obama is a socialist".

Thinking that journalists work for free would certainly be an odd mistake for me to make. But thanks for the lecture, I guess?

Like say if you have 2 chain stores in a town failing, but the 3rd is doing really well,it would still put you in the red until you close down the 2 that arent doing well.

What lesson of free enterprise is that, out of curiosity? The owner might have good reasons to keep all 3 open: keeping up brand visibility, allowing more flexibility in working hours/locations to improve staff retention, having a presence in a neighbourhood to keep a rival store from opening there and costing business at all locations, etc. etc. etc.

EACH part of a corporation needs to cover itself financially, or it will bring down the company as a whole.

This is why when you visit the mall, security will randomly pick you up by the ankles and shake you to collect the change in your pockets, so as to cover their salaries.