Vale the Newsprint Media. My Last Reflection….

Some time ago I wrote about the problems of generating income under the internet business model due to the difficulty in controlling property rights. For example, with music and movies/DVD the marginal profit is zero because the only one copy needs to be sold for it to be freely available to all consumers. As such, many elements of the music and film industries as they were historically structured are being forced to reinvent themselves into new viable business models.

Well it seems recently, that the online news market is now thrashing around with the realisation that giving it away isn’t a necessary going to pave the corporate hallways with gold. The historical business model for printed news has been to generate income partly from a product fee and partly from advertising – particularly classified advertising (houses, motor vehicles etc.). But on the net, generally there has been no charge and the advertising revenue is insufficient to pay the rent and the journo’s.

So the solution according to some news providers is to charge people to view it. One option is to charge intermediary services who aggregate the news on the web. Another option is to charge the consumer, for example, per article or a service access subscription fee.

First of all, the internet model for printed news was really a pretty poor business model.  It merely transports on to the web what was once printed on paper.  It looks pretty much the same on the web as it does on paper. The only real value is that news is delivered to the consumer a bit more quickly, and lets you vent your spleen (but does anyone really care).  It never really leveraged any greater value from the web than it provided on paper.

The end of newsprint on the web is coming because  the news market has both privately and publicly funded competitors. So if the privates start charging, unless the publics follow suit the news will still be available for nothing. Furthermore, the average day to day news item is typically highly substitutable, not just between online providers, but also other media mediums – television and radio for example. So if I can’t get news for free from company A, I can probably get it from company B for free.   The only reason I would pay for something from company A is if their value proposition provided something unique that I really wanted and couldn’t get anywhere else for free.

The solution is far from clear.  Are you and I going to pay for it, or are there too many other options to get the same information?  Even the idea that news providers could charge the intermediaries is only viable if they can make a buck out of it.

The newspaper owners and defendants argue that there is no solution then the the old privately owned news print providers are on a crash course with market failure.  And if the privates fail and leave only the publics, then who owns the publics?  Governments of course.  And do we want governments controlling and filtering the news we get – NOT.

More pertinent is the fact that the news market is a lot more than printed news in this day and age – in fact both public and private  newspapers compete with a mass of 24 hour television news services not to mention the radio news services available across the globe on the internet and twitter and blogs which report first hand in moments from the heart of the latest global catastrophe.  In this context, the death of newsprint is really like an aged grandfather; admired and loved but past their prime.  Struggling to grasp a world which is evolving beyond their grasp.

Of course, much of the news print media is filled with garbage fed to us by those who can afford the  cost of running publicity strategies.  Police reports, government reports, companies trying to flavour their public perception.  It’s all stuff which forms the background of  the day, to which we pay little attention, which we forget almost as we hear it and which has no real impact on our own lives.   We can surely fill that space with other more invigorating stimuli – a novel, some music or idle chat with another person?

Defendants also emphasise the history of investigative journalism uncovering  some corruption or fraud vital to the ongoing stability of our society.  Alas – we listen and watch this on TV now – reports, debates and analysis until our minds are boggled with information.  Maybe that’s the issue.  When something’s written down in front of you logically – you have time to think about it (if you make the time).   Perhaps that will be the major loss.  The unique value of the written news report – the opportunity for reflection.

Perhaps what we need is is a new business model to reflect on complex issues in our society.

Corporate Fashions – Suit Down Unless You’re Part of the Industrial Age

If you look around the office, do you see men and women in suits. Some are daggy, worn and crumpled and unkempt (reflecting the way they feel about the grinding job which pays the mortgage)  while others perhaps higher up in the organisation are a little smarter, perhaps trying to make a power statement.

For many years I suited up for the office. It was an unspoken law. As I rose up the ranks I had to spend more money on suits to look a bit flashier and fit in with the higher management tiers.

I even recall that in one (strange but listed)  company I worked for at the end of the last century they actually put managers  through a training program not just on dress codes but which suits to buy, how to match ties and look suave,  powerful and influential.

When I look back on it, the suited office is one of the strangest norms in the world of business. For some reason, someone somewhere, sometime years ago decided that it is appropriate for everyone to conform to a set of dress rules.  And the rule was the suit…. and unless you had money to wast, it was a bad idea.

Men and later women would suit up to signify their knowledge, power and influence.  Or if you were lower down the corporate ranks, to indicate your willingness to conform and work your ass off for the company.

But if you think about it – that’s plain stupid.  You end up in a room with your client and you’re all dressed up together; all trying to overpower and influence each other, and all nullifying the others effect.  you just end up looking like a bunch of conformists and in the end the deal just comes down to the value and the money.

Interestingly, in the noughties it has become fashionable for entrepreneurial companies to throw away the suit unless its with an open neck for the males.  Immediately, this defined the suited companies as old and conservative.

Now it’s banks, insurance companies and lawyers who do the power dressing suit thing and  modern (and often) entrepreneurial companies who do the smart casual and comfortable thing.

So  now the suit has become a symbol of the industrial age, when work was about getting the staff to conform and a status symbol for those with power and influence.  If you wear a suit you work in an old industry doing business with other old companies.

A suit doesn’t mean you’re  knowledgeable or trustworthy. It just means you’re conservative and old school.  In fact today when I see a banker or financial expert dressed in a suit I assume their incompetent based on the past couple of years of economic mishaps.

Now of course, I have the luxury of not having to wear a suit except to meet with those old industrial age clients from whom I am seeking fees for service. In fact, I have the luxury of spending most days in jeans and a t-shirt.