When I was in college in Indiana, one of the papers you wanted to work for was the South Bend Tribune. It was, I think, the third largest paper in the state, close to Chicago, and had a reputation as a good employer.
So this is admittedly hard to read.
What's really depressing about it, of course, is the view of: Keep giving me lots of cool stuff free, and, hey, you have my sincere thanks for doing so! The writer says he basically read the print paper for the ads, especially of what might appear to be Best Buy.
But now, all the news is free online, so why should I bother to pay to read it? And by the way, why don't you stop charging me for your archive? I'd really like it if you'd give me that free, too. And I'd really like it if you'd give me free information any time you talk about my employer. And give me the blogs, and the feeds, and oh by the way, that nice column that tells me free what stores might be opening so that I don't have to worry about advertising.
And where is the South Bend Tribune supposed to get the money for providing all this service?
That question, alas, Michael Stephens does not address. Not his concern.
(And by the way, while you're at it, Tribune, why don't you put a box online so we can cancel the paper there? That would make it really convenient.)
The problem is not whether this is the future. The problem is whether there is any sort of business model for newspapers contained herein that allows them to continue to provide the sort of information Mr. Stephens wants.
The real problem is that despite the industry pondering this problem for the last decade, no solution has emerged.
Are we back to the Chinese definition of insanity?
(And now a moment for department store trivia: For South Bend, Robertson Bros. and George Wyman & Co.)
No comments:
Post a Comment