Barry vs the bloggers!
National Business Review Owner Barry Colman has announced a subscriber only content service, and caused a big stir online with the comments he made in his letter announcing it.
Now I write for NBR online (today’s column is here – on the shape of Auckland) so Barry is my eventual overlord, so I risk biting the hand that feeds with my comments, but hope it will be a useful contribution. Barry said:
I expect about 20 per cent of our web news to be Subscriber Only Content. The exact ratio will vary as we will be using the category for only the best news stories, scoops and commentary pieces that we post on any one day. Besides the serious issues of the moment the content will include large doses of satire and goings on uncovered by our nosey Private Bin reporters.
As you know, there has been endless discussion for a number of years about the crazy model adopted by newspapers in most parts of the free world in which they pay the enormous costs of running professional newsrooms only to give their content away free – while at the same time slashing newsroom numbers to save money as circulation and advertising revenues fall.
I’m not sure they see it as giving it away free, as some make considerable money from the advertising on their sites. But it is a choice for each media outlet as to whether or not they provide 0%, 80% or 100% of their content online.
And to add to the madness it has been the aggregators that have profited the most from the supply of that free news copy. Worse still the model has spawned a huge band of amateur, untrained, unqualified bloggers who have swarmed over the internet pouring out columns of unsubstantiated “facts” and hysterical opinion.
Most of these “citizen journalists” don’t have access to decision makers and are infamous for their biased and inaccurate reporting on almost any subject under the sun (while invariably criticising professional news coverage whose original material they depend on to base their diatribes).
Now I have a healthy enough ego that I take no offence from the above, as I automatically assume Barry is speaking about everyone else, but not me 
But I do think Barry is overstating the case. Of course there are many many blogs that are rubbish. But they accordingly have littler readership and little influence.
There are however many blogs that provide analysis that can be as good as that you find anywhere. Paul Walker provides a list of blogs that feature some of the most respected and influential economists in the world as a counter example.
I think the climate for traditional media is very tough, and there is no easy answer. There has been and continues to be a massive change in the role of the traditional media.
Historically, people read newspapers for two reasons – for information/news and for analysis. Th first of those reasons is fading.
15 years ago if you wanted to know what was happening in US politics, your only easy way to know was to read the local newspaper, and browse whatever story they have run in world news from AP. The entire world almost relied on what AP said about US politics. Today you can get information on US political news from hundreds or thousands of sites online.
You used to get a newspaper for the weather. Not I get hourly updates through my browser and/or blackberry – all for free.
I used to get newspapers for cartoons. Now I get Dilbert every day direct.
We used to read what happened in the House the next morning. Now you can read a transcript online by 5.30 pm. If you invest in shares, you no longer need a newspaper to find out the share prices.
We still rely on newspapers for crime reporting, but within a few years we may have live Internet streaming of every courthouse, and may get better information from a few dedicated court bloggers who spend their days and nights following trials.
So as a provider of information, the media monopoly is seriously weakened.
This leaves the other side – the analysis. Now I do think people will pay for good analysis, but in certain areas there is significant competition from online sources.
I rarely buy newspapers any more. The exception is Monday’s Dominion Post. I primarily buy this to see how the Dom Post political team scored the previous week. I value their analysis enough to do so. Hence Barry Colman is not necessarily wrong – some people will pay for good analysis.
But as Paul Walker pointed out, there is some remarkably good free analysis already out there. The best economic debates are now found online. Bernard Hickey and interest.co.nz provide some very good financial analysis. Some bloggers (not all) have as good access to decision makers as journalists.
In my view quality analysis is what people will pay for – either in hard copy, or electronically. Over the next few years fewer and fewer people will pay just for reporting information.
Trans-tasman is a good example of a subscription model that works. People don’t get it for their reporting, but for their analysis and insights.
Cactus Kate blogs at length on the Colman e-mail and concludes:
Colman is charging $89 for the content or “The cost is a little more than 80c a day and I promise you it will be one investment you won’t regret”. Well I wouldn’t if NBR updated it’s content on a daily basis with real content but it doesn’t. So good luck on that, but to blame bloggers for contributing to the model that is forcing him to have to go pay-per-view? A tad silly. For the pay-per-view am I to be reading low paid first-jobbed twenty-something children repeating the news, or will I read serious senior business journos actually breaking stories that matter?
Fortunately Colman has one of the better entrepreneurial brains in the country and is well equipped to come up with something more original and “out there” than this email whinge to justify making 20% of online content “locked” to make his publication profitable and more widely read. After all he’s really, really rich so has proven he knows more about business and turning profits than all bloggers do combined.
We look forward to it.
And that is what it will come down to. People will pay for good analysis, for original breaking of stories, but not for merely repeating of information from primary sources – now that others have access to those primary sources.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Maybe the NBR should put some effort into proofing its publication – I can’t believe the amount of errors I encounter each time I read an issue.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I buy a newspaper when I want to read it in a cafe – otherwise I use the web.
The web has broken the tyranny of distance and the monopoly of news media. The best journalists and experts can go direct to their readers, they don’t need a newspaper. The best newspapers are available everywhere in the world. Second rate won’t cut it.
I doubt pay per view will succeed unless as you say it provides uniquely high quality specialised analyses.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
David
I think you err a bit re US politics 15 years ago, The Economist has always had good US coverage and has been available in NZ for decades – but I take your general point.
Personally I think the NBR is overpriced and given that situation I think Mr Colman is over pricing his on-line offering. His e-paper is also over-priced and he uses an application that is not user friendly and often does not work properly.
I can get first class financial analysis and news elsewhere. increasingly I find I can do without the NBR. There is no longer sufficient unique value to make it worthwhile.
Colman will have to ‘lock up’ quality analysis and investigative pieces, but somehow I doubt it.
I suspect that Colman like some others does not yet get the on-line world.
As I noted here sometime ago http://bit.ly/cCvAc there is a place for niche players provided the execution is excellent.
The key point is the provision of value.
What Colman needs to ensure is that the NBR in all forms provides value. I question whether it does so today.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I noticed today when I tried to read an article and was asked to subscribe for a hefty fee. I was hugely disappointed because I love the NBR, but the days of paying for news are long gone. NBR are screwed if they try going down the route, and they can kiss my readership goodbye on principle. Like I said, it’s a shame because NBR is a great source, but not worth my money when there are so many other excellent free sources out there.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Correction: “charging an impressive $298 per year for the privilege. (The oft-quoted $89 is for six months, and an introductory rate only)
http://lancewiggs.com/2009/07/17/the-nbr-is-in-trouble-what-should-they-do/
Bryan Spondre
July 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I own a business in a particularly small and specialised industry and from time to time NBR writers and journalists call me for information and quotes to be used in their stories and articles.
I do that willingly and freely (and hopefully its good publicity for me – although I can’t measure it financially), so it is a bit rich that NBR now want to charge readers for the information that I give out to them at no cost.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Heh! And that’s just DPF’s column!
goonix – you mean number of errors – once again, proving that a post pointing out mistakes invariably includes a typo or somesuch of its own.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Colonel Masters wrote:
“goonix – you mean number of errors – once again, proving that a post pointing out mistakes invariably includes a typo or somesuch of its own.”
Aka Muphry’s Law
July 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I’m told TV3 is doing a piece on this tonight, featuring Whale Oil.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
poor old Barry and the rest of the MSM
Just cant get over that they are no longer the Lords of the News.
Now they have some real competition to challenge their former monopoly on that the peasants were told and what they told to think
Now the citizens have a raft of infromation opinion debate counter views.
Like all thought Police and Commies Colman now has to justify his position and employ better hacks than the shambles that is the NBR
Tough aint it Bazza.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
“goonix – you mean number of errors – once again, proving that a post pointing out mistakes invariably includes a typo or somesuch of its own.”
My use of the word ‘amount’ instead of ‘number’ is because there are so many errors they are uncountable!
July 17th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
One thing you can’t get with newspapers is interaction. The opportunity to debate a perspective and pretend you know something is a very human thing and is why the blog has become so popular. If the community consisted only of those people who published their own blogs without opportunity for comment, it would not have taken off. It’s the fact one can interact on a live basis that attracts people.
So there, Barry.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@reid – something tells me that a few of the regulars on here are also regulars in the ‘letters to the editor’ section (as well as on talkback radio)…
July 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Possibly mate, but it’s not the same thing. As a blog participant, you get the extended opportunity to say as much as you want, whereas with a letter you can make only one point and on a talk show you’re limited by the host.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“Trans-tasman is a good example of a subscription model that works. People don’t get it for their reporting, but for their analysis and insights.”
Well, yes. That’s the British model, where newspapers are generally considered to be fucked.
It’s not just analysis though – you’re also looking at people buying content for stuff like inflammatory opinion from the likes of Michael Laws, and an increasing polarisation of media and selective coverage in those publications as a result.
Journalistic independence – RIP.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Yeh but they’ve only got themselves to blame, haven’t they? If there was an extremely insightful business/political/geopolitical publication of the stature of Stratfor available here, I’d buy it.
There isn’t – NBR is the closest but it’s a weekly and it’s specifically business-focused. But there’s plenty of really pretty pics of Bard Pitt and Angela Jolie, whoever they are.
Apparently, the MSM think that everyone in NZ is a freakin moron…
Apparently.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Yeh but they’ve only got themselves to blame, haven’t they? If there was an extremely insightful business/political/geopolitical publication of the stature of Stratfor available here, I’d buy it.
There isn’t – NBR is the closest but it’s a weekly. But there’s plenty of really pretty pics of Bard Pitt and Angela Jolie, whoever they are.
I don’t think there’s any sense of blame placed on them in particular – the media outlets aren’t generally interested in the right opinion, or good analysis, they’re interested in advertising sales and ratings. Take Fox News or MSNBC – no balanced opinion, stated leanings to a political position, but high ratings.
SST features Laws and outsells most comparable publications in Britain with 1/16th of the population.
But don’t worry, it’s not just the traditional media in NZ that assumes the lowest common denominator…
…truth is if all we got was Economist style analysis, hardly anyone would buy the stuff.
It’s entertainment. That’s all it is.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I continue to think that the traditional media model is going to break. I respect the Economist as probably the ones who get it the best (probably not deliberately so, it just fits how they operate). The provide really good analysis, and being a weekly they don’t really try to have the most up-to-date news, rather they focus on the analysis. The problem I have is that whenever they have an article on something I’m an expert in, they usually have it at least partly wrong. This usually leads me to conclude that probably all their other articles are also partly wrong, and that makes me question what I’m reading.
Of course, the other media that I read are usually a lot more than partly wrong – I can often see that they are fully wrong, fully stupid, and completely misquoting in articles I’m not even an expert in. So still full credit to the Economist for at least having some decent content.
But as long as I can find an expert who actually knows what they’re talking about online, I question why I’d want to read someone who is (badly) repeating something that someone else told them on paper.
I think that eventually the model will move towards:
– primary sources for news / as it happens type stuff
– aggregators and portals that you can go to confident that they’ll tell you where that breaking news is
– analysis from genuine experts (paid and unpaid) – but people will only bother to read a few of the best experts from around the globe – mediocre won’t be enough
– opinion from people who write and think well – and no pretensions to a lack of bias
– some form of aggregator that pulls all this together into something that people can find, a place people can debate, something that you can use as your homepage
The question is where in this spectrum NBR think they’ll be making money. They don’t have a monopoly on news, they don’t employ enough genuine experts. They have some good opinion people, and they could be an aggregator. But I’m not sure a subscription model will work for aggregators….that is more likely to be advertising supported (seeing as it is a portal type play)
July 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
P.S. If I was Barry, I’d be looking at breaking into this new comms channel rather than dissing it.
I suspect there’d be a real valuable market for an NBR-hosted blog that had people like Hickey, Weldon and various CEOs posting on various subjects. (Just like there’d be a valuable market for farmers if Fonterra was to setup something like that (if they haven’t already.)) Of course you’d need pretty good moderation to keep out the rabid commies a.k.a. lefties, but apart from that, given your target audience, the advertising would more than cover all the costs and it would increase your circulation.
Apologies to those lefties like Ryan, who aren’t rabid commies.
Disclaimer: No lefties were injured during production of this post.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Good post, David.
One incredibly great thing about blogging is that there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is simply not possible for vested interests to shut if down. Not that Mr Coleman wants to (I hope), but blogging permanently damages and will ultimately destroy outright the argument that what the mainstream media says matters. The MSM ability to manipulate opinion To the extent the mainstream media fails to give people what they want – whether that be rigorous analysis or fun or gossip or breaking news, any number of bloggers can immediately and costlessly step up and fill the void.
I am convinced blogging matters, it is a game-changer, and it is and will become increasingly valuable.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I read the NBR online even though I can walk about two metres to read it off the coffee table at work. Not a chance Ill be paying for any online content though and I doubt many other people will either. I cant see this being successful irrespective of what the price is. Even if the price were dropped to a nominal amount it would put enough people off due to the hassle of it that advertising revenue would drop by more.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Vested interests hate the internet because it’s available, universal and gives people unfettered access to information hitherto reserved for the few.
Heard of Internet2, ben?
Two possibilities. Either there’s a major terrorist attack that hacks into say, nuclear power stations and is blamed on the internet -or- there’s a nuclear war with resultant EMP which takes out all the index servers. Personally I discount the latter firstly because it’s easier to control people if they don’t know they’re being controlled and secondly because it puts at risk the assets of those vested interests which are mainly in Europe – France and Germany specifically.
Watch this space.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The courts having live streaming? Ha – I would settle for being able to get a summary and history on a computer screen when dealing with a punter as duty solicitor. That’s not even close!
July 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I was thinking the other day, it would be nice to see the video of Weatherspoons testimony in full.
Yeah…
July 17th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
As I said earlier today on KB…
DPF must be pee’d off with this move.
NBR says that they’ll be reserving “premium” content for online subscribers.
A story about Suzanne Paul is “premium” DPFs column is still free.
What does that say about how much NBR values DPF’s blog as content.
And I blogged about this whole NBR issue first-thing this morning. You know where to find it if you want to read it.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Net Neutrality is already heading towards the shitter Reid, i would say “we” missed that boat.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Today, for the first time in hell, months I think, I looked at a newspaper. I was in the waiting room at a medical clinic and there was a paper lying on the coffee table. I looked at the front page, and it contained very little that I cared about, and those things that I did care about I was already more informed about than the newspaper, since I’d read up-to-the-minute updates about those issues on my Iphone a few seconds previously.
I can’t actually remember the last time I BOUGHT a newspaper. It’s got to be a couple of years, maybe three? And I used to be a religious “Dominion in the morning, Evening Post at night” guy.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“within a few years we may have live Internet streaming of every courthouse”
What a great idea. We could have cameras in each courtroom with the ability to change between them at will. That would certainly work for open justice! It would also allow the public to be far better informed about Court processes, rather than simply assuming that the reporter they saw on the news last night actually has a clue what they are talking about. I would fully support it, but the Ministry of Injustice wouldn’t have a clue where to start. As GPT1 said, they can’t even give the defence lawyers read only access to the case management system That would be a good start.
In my experience, and with the exception of a few very specialist court reporters, most of the msm clones covering the courts are supremely ignorant of what is going on and rely on being told by the Crown and the court staff (because the defence bar mostly hates the media and for the most part won’t co-operate with them).
I might buy a newspaper once a week, now. I used to buy one every day, but now I fire up the browser instead with a folder on the links bar with all of my preferred information and commentary sites in them. I mostly avoid the msm (with the exception of The Times, which has seriously good legal reporting). I still like the idea of newspapers, but they have so much ‘fluff’ in them these days that I sometimes think I am buying a gossip magazine. And the NZ papers don’t seem to realise that a couple or four pages of international news is a joke when I can go online and get it for free. I don’t like paying to read an article from another source that I read online 4 or 5 days ago.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Sounds like Barry is having a bit of a hissy fit, like it or not common riff raff like myself now have the ability to source incredible amounts of information. It’s surprising that parts of the MSM have not yet realised they are no longer the sole arbitrators and distributors of information. Sadly for Barry there is a new sheriff in town and the rules have changed. Just like us farmers Barry has to compete in a world that wants the most for the cheapest price. He either has to supply a brilliant product or offer something special, a big call in a connected world.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
GPT1: “The courts having live streaming? Ha – I would settle for being able to get a summary and history on a computer screen when dealing with a punter as duty solicitor. That’s not even close!”
Which is exactly why the courts should be privatised and opened up to investment and innovation.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
It has been evident for a while now that the drive for ratings has turned the MSM into whores. Income and therefore content is dictated by attracting the most viewers/readers/listeners. Talkback radio is probably the worst example of this I believe. There is no real attempt to have a reasoned debate, it is better to find a controversial and preferably polarising topic to encourage the loonies to call in for a rave. There are occasionally good contributions but in reality, the hosts don’t want a solution.
Newspapers are becoming more and more tabloid every day, they might as well go the whole hog and stick the topless model on page three. TV is worse. There is no investigation, no depth or insight.
As pointed out by others here, blogging allows relatively instant interaction, debate and pretty much covers all the angles of a story. It doesn’t mean that you have to agree with them but the opinions and angles are out there and this can help you modify your own particular viewpoint. The MSM rarely allow this to happen. MSM used to control much of what was held to be true by many of the population. That was an incredible amount of power.
Times are changing, information is getting out there instantly, people are exposed to so many more points of view. This is the start of a whole new age and there are going to be some interesting years coming up.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Which is exactly why the courts should be privatised and opened up to investment and innovation.”
Yeh but Alan, the justice system is not a business. It pits the state against a person. It uses the ultimate penalty up to and including execution and even if that’s not used at the mo, the processes have to be designed as if they were, in case it ever is, again.
If the worst happened, would you prefer you or your loved one to be subjected to a cheap, rapid and efficient trial, or something that took sufficient time to ensure due care and process were performed?
The possibility you might never be called to undertake such, isn’t relevant to your answer.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Well said, Kaya.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:07 am
I only read papers after they have been properly ironed!
;_)
July 18th, 2009 at 6:04 am
The main reason why Socialists hate the Internet.
“Workers control means of Production” was taken as “Party controls means of Information”
Watch this Video and see whether labour and especially the Greens are following the KGB/Soviet prescription for subverting a Country
over Generations.
Viewer Discretion is advised, as it may cause seizures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk
July 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
It’s the last death throes of the MSM. There isn’t anything to say or do, their model is finished. The world no longer needs to pay for aggregated, shallow content.
Best ignored.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I wonder if his subscription service will be ad free?
As for me I usually just read my newspapers online either on their website or the actual PDF (not a scan too cause you can search content) of the print edition of paper throught the Wellington Library website using my library card (best kept secret for newspaper readers as every newspaper in NZ and several international ones are there too): http://whekenui.wcl.govt.nz/wc-bin/pressdisplay (I presume Auck and ChCh have it also)… True to form NBR isn’t on there as they mustn’t have sold their licence for this…
If you are sitting on a computer all day then why would you want to pay for a newspaper nowadays?
July 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
reid, why on earth would any of that be worse if handled by private, competing, court service providers?
At least then the individual wouldn’t be facing the State in an operation run by the State.
Would I feel safer in an aeroplane run by a private company than one run by a State? You bet.
Why would a court be any different? It’s an order of magnitude simpler to design and operate.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Alan, defendants are not customers.
There are various significant constitutional principles at play here. In any society you have a division of power between the rights of the state and the rights of the individual. In both a monarchical democracy and in a republic these rights are carefully designed to create checks and balances. All of this is to prevent the state from abusing its power and falsely imprisoning, surveilling or even executing its citizens. These rights cannot be contracted out because it’s a contract between the state and the individual. That’s why we pay taxes (mostly) willingly and the state (mostly) willingly doesn’t run round falsely imprisoning people it doesn’t like or thinks are threats to itself.
It’s an extremely elegant arrangement built up over centuries and it works very well. If you introduced a private corporation whose employees had the power to imprison private citizens it completely changes that whole contractual structure.
There’s nothing wrong with private companies running the administrative side of the justice system but when it comes to judicial appointments they need to stay well clear of that and importantly, be seen by the public to have absolutely no influence whatsoever, neither in judicial appointments nor in sentencing policy. There are in fact many constitutional principles involved in judicial appointments such as the fact that a sitting judge cannot be dismissed except for gross misconduct and this is to prevent the govt from firing judges who come down with decisions they don’t like.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
After reflection another point is that if we did give an administrative contract to a private corporation then we’d have to make damn sure that corporation had no opportunity to exert any influence over things like how long a trial should take. You could well imagine them trying to do that since such measures are core to productivity. The fact they would not be able to influence that might make them hesitate before taking it on in the first place.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
reid, we are talking about privatising the courts only. As with any other professions they would only be able to employ qualified or licensed judges, probably appointed by the Government just as at present and adminstering the same laws as at present.
Just as at present there would be rights of appeal to higher courts. More opportunities to incentivise quality decision-making arise, such as a requirement to refund costs for any decisions overturned on appeal due to errors made by the first court.
Likewise I see no reason why a range of cost options could be provided for a hearing from which the participants could choose. In the case of disagreement, the party demanding the higher priced version might suffer greater financial consequences if they lost the case.
There are all kinds of opportunities to improve the adminstration of justice if it is removed from bureaucrats and given to good business brains to manage, innovate and invest.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Yeah you may be right Alan, but at this moment I just think the constitutional implications are too entwined.
Don’t get me wrong. I work in business process improvement, so I know generally what is and isn’t productive. I have however never worked in Justice and I don’t know the operational details and I could be wrong.
Certainly their productivity in terms of wait times is appalling, just as it is in public hospitals.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
It’s not so much a constitutional issue as a power issue. The legal profession erects huge barriers to any review of its operations by non-legal expertise.
That is how the court system has avoided change for so long and provided the least possible service and benefits at the greatest possible cost.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
That’s very true.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
How timely: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/07/google-newspapers.html
July 18th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Barry is a horse shoe salesman in detroit in 1910
July 19th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Tradtional media just isn’t getting it with regard to online content. Take the major dailies for example – Stuff sources far too much of it’s content from overseas (Australia in particular) and the NZ Herald rehashes many stories two or three times in a vain attempt to elicit a greater readership.
It’s almost as if they are paying lip service to their online profiles, whereas they should be directing as much resource as possible to it. It’s one thing i have to give TVNZ credit for – they do seem to be trying to get some traction online.
Good luck to Colman and the NBR, but i can’t see it working. Haven’t they learnt the lesson that the Internet is “free”?
July 20th, 2009 at 9:09 am
From VC:
” The industrial revolution and the Renaissance before it lasted a century or more. It takes a long time for such fundamental changes to work their way through the system and produce a new “normal”.
Periods of great change produce fantastic investment opportunities and also destroy stable predictable businesses”