Some interesting thoughts on media paywalls by someone who actually gets paid to write.
By erecting paywalls, the psychological economics change. If I write a column for the unpaywalled TechCrunch – or the Guardian – I know I’ll be paid a certain fee and my words will be available to certain millions of people. By contrast, if I write for the paywalled Times – either the London or New York strain – the fee isn’t that much better or worse, but the potential reach will be restricted. That gap in audience and visibility has to be filled by something else. And that ‘something’ is likely to be prestige. |
Does the inherent prestige of saying I write for either of the Timeses make up for what I lose by not writing the same thing for almost anywhere else? Frankly, yes: just being able to list the Times in my portfolio of work is a feather in my cap. A feather which, to screw the metaphor, can open doors to other lucrative commissions, talking head gigs and even book deals. |
For other publications, though, the answer isn’t so clear. If the San Francisco Chronicle or – I dunno – TechCrunch – went behind a paywall tomorrow, would they still be able to attract a high caliber of contributors, without hiking their fees? Would even a hack like me be as happy writing for them? I’d guess probably not. And in any case, fee hiking is not really something most publications can afford to do. |
The point is this: the establishment of a paywall at both the London and New York Times might be a dismal and embarrassing failure. But even if it’s a huge success, we should probably view that success less as a ghost of media yet to come, and more as one of the unique benefits of being a paper of record.
Read more at techcrunch.com
No comments:
Post a Comment