Mediabistro Poll: The Crowd Says Newspaper Paywalls Would Be Disaster

Latest polls and surveys on the topic of paywalls.  Bottom line – it isn’t good.

Mediabistro Poll: The Crowd Says Newspaper Paywalls Would Be Disaster.

 

“Saving Photojournalism” – comments from DigitalJournalist.org

The Digital Journalist

The following post was written as part of a thread on the subject of saving photojournalism, written by Dirck Halstead at http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0909/how-to-start-to-save-photojournalism.html.

I have come across many posts, blogs, and articles that point to internet advertising as the future for funding on-line content. I also read industry publications such as Ad Week, Advertising Age, and PR Week. From this broader perspective, it is apparent that on-line advertising is NOT an answer that can be depended upon for the future funding of anything unless you are bought in to one of the major on-line ad platforms (Google, for example).

There are many challenges. TV and print advertising is easier to target to a specific audience, especially if you are selling a product or service geared to a well defined target market. Day-time viewing, prime-time viewing, after school viewing, late night infomercials – it is a science that goes far deeper than many of us can imagine.
You may put a print ad in a magazine that is only purchased by your target market, like a Canon ad in PDN magazine for example. But now, let’s say, you put that same Canon ad in USA Today. Will you get the same results? No. USA Today is read by a much larger volume of readers, many of whom have absolutely zero interest in seeing the latest products from a camera manufacturer. This is similar to the challenge being faced by internet advertisers. Unless they advertise only on those sites that are geared toward a specific audience, then they are trying to sell to people who have zero interest in what they are offering. And the instant gratification, short attention span nature of the internet means that it is easier than ever to click past an ad that holds no interest for you. Technology certainly allows for Canon to only show ads on sites that are photography related. But the easy access to internet advertising by almost anybody with a connection to the web means that Canon is suddenly advertising in a much more crowded market. There are more ads for camera gear on the internet, competing for attention, than you would get in a print magazine.

The advertising industry has defined this issue as an important challenge to be resolved for the continued success of their own businesses – this is not something I just made up. So if advertisers are uncertain about the value of advertising on the internet (and there is plentiful data to support this concern), then we need to consider alternative revenue sources to support the work that we do, and want to do.

One model that was discussed in Advertising Age was very interesting, and quite compelling. If you are a cable TV subscriber, perhaps just signing up for the basic package, then you will have access to only a handful of channels, most of which are pretty pathetic. But if you upgrade to a different level, you get access to more channels, HBO, Starz, Bravo etc. Those channels get their cut of viewer subscriptions to help pay for their productions. Advertising Age suggested that a similar model be applied to internet service provider (ISP) subscriptions. I get access to the internet via Comcast. It’s OK. Sometimes faster than others – but it serves me for the moment. Now if I had to pay a little more to have access to premium news content, let’s say $5/month extra for all I can eat access to the NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Washington Post, FT, BBC, Reuters etc. then I would almost certainly sign up for that, if I could no longer get that content for free. It actually makes my life a great deal easier. I do not have to manage subscriptions to multiple publications, and I have instant access to a plentiful supply of news, features, and other content. Now spread that model to publications that focus on specific interests such as lifestyle magazines, international affairs, computer information, etc. A small monthly fee to receive a flood of content on your areas of interest, without having to manage subscription payments for individual publications, would make life so much easier. And Comcast would be responsible for distributing the fees that viewers pay, to the content providers.

And THAT is where advertising will find new value. If they KNOW that there are 5 million subscribers to the “Outdoor Living” internet magazine channel, as delivered by Comcast (for example), then they will be far more likely to spend gobs of money on targeted advertising.

With this scenario, the advertising dollars can, once again, start to flow to journalists and photojournalists, allowing them to devote valuable time to researching, producing, and delivering quality content.

As I said, this is all based on discussions currently underway in the advertising industry. I think it makes a lot of sense.

 

Blurring Video and Print Media

This just in….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8211209.stm

An interesting development, indeed.

 

What’s Next for Photojournalists – What’s Next for Journalism?

Hey, had you heard that photojournalism is not just facing a crisis, but is actually dealing with one?

If you haven’t seen at least five stories about the current state of photojournalism then you haven’t been paying attention.  Just last week there were articles in the New York Times and on Dirck Halstead’s site, the DigitalJournalist.org, discussing this matter.  I have been posting and getting into detailed discussions on this matter for nearly two years and it is startling, and a little disappointing, to see that many leaders in the industry seem to only now be accepting that changes are happening which will not be reversible.  I guess that traditions are hard to let go of but it is only those who are willing or able to break with traditional forms of photojournalism, and explore the myriad opportunities out there for delivering content in new, and compelling ways, who will remain in the industry.  A recent article in the UTNE Reader stated that “we do not need newspapers; we need journalism.”

This has been an interesting time to observe the actions of photojournalists, to study their motivations and passion for what they do.  It has become very clear that some people are primarily photographers who choose photojournalism as their niche.  Let’s call this group “news photographers.”  Others have different goals, such as wanting to make a difference to something or someone, and they choose photojournalism as a means of achieving that change.  Let’s call this group “social change photographers.”

In the evolution that we are seeing, former staff photographers, and freelance photojournalists, who are in the “news photographer” group, seem to be migrating to other forms of photography such as the inevitable “wedding photojournalist” or “corporate photojournalist”.   Sadly, both of those avenues have been saturated with photojournalists over the past five years, who saw the writing on the wall, accepted the need to change, and made the move ahead of the pack.

“Social change photographers” on the other hand, those who are more focused on the effective delivery of key messages regarding humanitarian and social affairs, are devoting time to exploring different ways of delivering those messages.  The advent of the internet, the ability to filter out undesirable news items, and the reduction of investment in quality investigative journalism, has resulted in a growing percentage of the public being increasingly unaware of serious humanitarian issues.  Social change photographers are exploring methods for delivering compelling content to this reluctant or distant audience, with innovative use of new technologies, internet delivery channels, and creative story telling techniques.  At the same time, this category of photographer is still finding opportunity in those wedding and corporate environments, to apply newly learned skills (sound, video, multimedia) and develop new revenue streams, in many cases, revenue streams that go on to support the work that they really want to do.  Brian Storm, for example, takes on assignments for some major brands such as Starbucks, the proceeds from which allow him to produce and deliver his excellent multimedia workshops, and seek out projects that are of interest to him.

So which are you?  A news photographer seeking opportunities to remain behind the viewfinder of your still camera, shooting alternative subject matter, or a social change photographer, looking for alternative methods of delivering important stories to a targeted audience?

On a slightly different note, there are those who state that “citizen photojournalism” is killing the industry.  Perhaps it isn’t helping but there have been cases where without individuals with cell phone cameras, we would never have seen some of the most dramatic shots of breaking news.  Two news items come immediately to mind, the first being the London Tube Bombing a few years ago, and, more recently, the ditching of a US Airways Airbus in the Hudson River, New York.  I do not really have any objection to citizen photojournalists as long as there is zero manipulation of the images that they submit.

What I DO have a HUGE objection to is the citizen “journalist.”  The proliferation of blogs, discussion boards, comment sections etc. is, I feel, delivering nothing but confusion and a considerable amount of inaccurate reporting on important topics.   The Examiner launched a series of blogs a while ago, inviting self-proclaimed experts in many fields to write about subject matter familiar to them.  I have viewed several of these articles and repeatedly came across published works that are clearly one-sided, driven by an alternative agenda, or simply very badly informed.  This is not unique to amateur journalists.  Even apparently professional journalists are guilty of failing in their role of providing objective content to their audiences.  Michelle Malkin, for example, who holds herself up as “independent”, is actually a self-proclaimed right-winger, with nothing but scathing things to say about the Obama Administration.  I wonder when she might turn her attention to the blatant corruption and mis-management that occurred during eight years under the GOP.

Now I have to admit that I am more inclined towards a liberal administration but, when it boils down to it, I am only supportive of legislation that, I feel, will benefit the citizens of this country, and I don’t much care which party can offer that.  What I abhor is the manipulation of public opinion via the media.  I, for one, am not going to change what I present to my audience, based on mandates from any administration.  Regrettably, there are many journalists, citizens and professionals, who do not hold up the same standards.  There are entire news networks that are blatantly biased towards one side or another.  Supposedly independent groups, driven and supported by a political force, are putting up blogs and other web content, in an effort to spread messages to a broad audience that, in many cases, are completely inaccurate.  The internet has become a very efficient vehicle for spreading propaganda.  This can not be good for anybody except those who have a desire to be powerful over those they wish to influence.

So what is next for photojournalists, and for journalism?

I already see shifts in acceptable behavior.  The public is starting to be more vocal on what they believe and what they see as being false.  There is growing dissatisfaction with the plethora of uninformed opinions delivered in thousands of different ways via the internet.  It is only a matter of time before some form of content quality control will be imposed, to allow the public to regain some level of confidence in what they are reading as “news.”

Until that time, we continue to face a continuing transition in the way in which news is delivered.  Some are speaking of paid content on the internet.  There is no way that will work.  We have become too used to receiving news at no cost.  No organization can give something away, and then step back and start charging for it.  News, via the internet, will likely be paid for through our subscriptions to broadband providers such as Comcast or AT&T, in much the same way that we watch movies on HBO by paying cable providers for access to various levels of service.

Having said that, the Journalism Online initiative, which announced the signing of 500 newspapers, is pushing a pay-for-news model that follows the lead-in approach i.e. give away some news for free but for more detailed, or more recent news, a reader will be expected to pay a fee.  This is a model that may have some future, but for how long, I am not certain.  A recent article in Advertising Age mentions “content snacking” which suggests that the proliferation of internet delivery channels (smart phones, netbooks, laptops) with always-on connections, is resulting in a nation that “no longer… eats media meals.  Rather, we’re all-day content snackers…” with an additional result of us becoming more “source-agnostic” – in other words, we are less loyal to particular sources of information.  If this turns out to be an accurate prediction of future trends, then increasing the volume of on-line paid content is less likely to work in the medium term.

There are many different angles to observe and consider in this media transition.  My only hope is that once a sustainable direction has been defined, and buy-in has been established by news-makers and news-consumers, it will result in a significant improvement in quality of product.

 

David Burnett on the State of Photojournalism

We’re Just Saying

From, the Digital Journalist, August 2009.

I am teaching a workshop in L.A. in a couple of weeks and for lack of a better title, I called it “Developing Skills as a Magazine Photographer.” My heart was honestly engaged in finding a proper title but somehow that is where I ended up. Even as I write, I think about what it means, and what this world of “magazine photography” is all about, and what it has become. Maybe those skills are as much about survival as they are about photographic esthetics. Of course, there are myriad stories these days about the death of journalism (in general) and the death of photojournalism (in particular) and I must say that having lived through a couple of those death periods already, I’m not quite sure just where this one fits in.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0908/were-just-sayin.html