Newspaper Execs Hold Secret Meeting To Discuss Paywalls 390
Techdirt got wind of a secret meeting by newspaper execs, complete with antitrust lawyers, to discuss how to proceed on the issue of implementing paywalls going forward. Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter. "You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time. That hasn't gone anywhere, so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know. But, of course, you don't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out. And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together 'to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of news gathering that will serve the American public.' And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved."
Last to Act Wins? (Score:5, Funny)
NY Times Editor: Marcus? Hi, it's Bill Keller from the New York Times and since we're all in agreement that today we put our paywalls, I just wanted to call you up and thank you again.
Washington Post Editor: Oh yeah, Bill, we gotta do this--I mean, we just can't sustain without this revenue *snicker*.
NY Times Editor: Alright well, I'm calling because it's 10am now EST and we had all agreed that at midnight EST our papers would switch over to paywalls.
Washington Post Editor: Yep. That's right. *snort*
NY Times Editor: Yeah, well, your paper is still accessible without a paywall.
Washington Post Editor: What? Oh, man, hah, must be a bug. I'll get right on that!
*click*
Two hours later.
*ring ring*
NY Times Editor: Yeah, Marcus? It's Bill from the New York Times again, it's noon, still seeing a paywall on your site, what's up?
Washington Post Editor: Oh yeah, it's a bad bug, we can't figure it out--might take weeks. *laughing in background*
NY Times Editor: Really? Well, we haven't had a single person sign up for our paywall and I'm looking at an ad online right now that says, "Washington Post: Because Information Wants to be Free." And, uh, I also am reading some comments on blogs about only idiots will ever use the New York Times from this point on. Am I on speaker phone?
Washington Post Editor: Bill, it's time I came clean. In the newspaper business, there are sheep and there are sharks
It's amazing how low corporate execs will stoop... (Score:4, Funny)
... to try to save a dying business model.
The reporters can always get day jobs and keep their writing game up at wikinews [wikinews.org].
1999 just called (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One idea... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Journalists are professional people who do research and go through an editorial process before they get published.
What do people like that have to do with newspapers?
Re:One idea... (Score:5, Funny)
However, the alternative is worse: if newspapers don't find a way to make money online soon, they'll start seriously blending advertising inside news content. I don't want that to happen!
Oh I agree, it's time for newspapers to get their fair share. I mean, compare a newspaper to a manufacturer of fine computers, like Dell, whose products are unrivaled, and offer a great bargain for the buck. Dell is a thriving business despite their low, low prices, and the fact that they have a sale going on right now at dell.com [dell.com]. It's only reasonable that newspapers get compensated for their work in the same way as company like Dell, that dauntless innovator and technology powerhouse behind the new economy.
Re:Paywalls a failed business model? Ask Blizzard. (Score:3, Funny)
1 million Americans pay for the New York Times, and many more than that read it for free. 2.5 million Americans *pay* for WoW.
Demographically speaking, those groups don't often overlap.