Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


MSM The media has a big problem, Reuters Institute says: Who will pay for the news?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    6,500

    The media has a big problem, Reuters Institute says: Who will pay for the news?

    Business News
    June 11, 2019 / 11:21 PM / Updated 5 hours ago
    Guy Faulconbridge
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKCN1TC2WV


    LONDON (Reuters) - News organizations are being challenged by technology giants and unsettled by a broader lack of trust but they have a much deeper problem: most people don’t want to pay for online news, the Reuters Institute found.

    Swiftly accelerating mobile internet and smartphones have revolutionized the delivery of news and destroyed the business models of many news organizations over the past 20 years, leading to falling revenues, layoffs and takeovers.

    The mass migration of advertising to U.S. technology giants such as Facebook, Google and Amazon has hammered revenues while more than half the world’s population now has access to news via an internet connection.

    But will people actually pay for news?

    The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said in its annual Digital News Report that most people would not pay for online news and that there had been only a small increase in the proportion of people willing to do so in the last six years.

    Even among those who do pay, there is “subscription fatigue” - many are tired of being asked to pay for so many different subscriptions. Many will opt for films or music rather than pay for news. So some media companies will fail.

    “Much of the population is perfectly happy with the news that they can access for free and even amongst those who are willing to pay, the majority are only willing to sign up for one subscription,” Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute, said by telephone.

    “A lot of the public is really alienated from a lot of the journalism that they see - they don’t find it particularly trustworthy, they don’t find it particularly relevant and they don’t find it leaves them in a better place.”

    While many news organizations add paywalls and some see increases in digital subscriptions, there has been little change in the proportion of people paying for online news, apart from the “Trump bump” rise in the United States in 2016/2017.

    In the United States, those paying for news online were likely to have a university degree and be wealthy: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post did well on digital.

    Still, almost 40 percent of new digital subscriptions at the New York Times are for crosswords and cooking, the Reuters Institute said, citing an article by Vox.

    In Britain, around a third of those surveyed said they avoided the news due to Brexit. Leave voters said they avoided the news as it made them sad and said they could not rely on the news being true. There has been no Brexit bounce.

    “If news organizations want to cut through with a direct route to users in an environment dominated by platforms, if they want to convince people to pay for their journalism then they must convince people that the journalism they publish has value for them, for the public,” Nielsen said.

    NETFLIX, APPLE AND AMAZON

    As they fight for revenue, news organizations are facing a growing threat from entertainment providers such as Netflix , Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Prime.

    “In some countries, subscription fatigue may also be setting in, with the majority preferring to spend their limited budget on entertainment (Netflix/Spotify) rather than news,” said Nic Newman, a senior research associate at the Reuters Institute.

    “Not surprisingly, news comes low down the list when compared with other services such as Netflix and Spotify – especially for the younger half of the population,” he said.

    When asked what media subscription they would pick if they had only one for the next year, just 7% of under 45-year-olds picked news. The report showed 37% would opt for online video and 15% for online music.

    Aggregators are also waiting in the wings: Apple News+ offers a single priced subscription for some access to premium titles including TIME, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Vogue, The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.

    That could deny publishers a direct link with consumers, limiting the information they have to make targeted advertising more effective, and valuable.

    “Despite the greater opportunities for paid content, it is likely that most commercial news provision will remain free at the point of use, dependent on low-margin advertising, a market where big tech platforms hold most of the cards,” Newman said.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    What they NEED to do is force advertisers back onto the old model. You pays your money and you takes your chance. No pay-per-click, no analytics, nothing. Just here's the ad, buy or don't.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    69,465
    No - Who will pay for the PROPAGANDA?
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    What they NEED to do is force advertisers back onto the old model. You pays your money and you takes your chance. No pay-per-click, no analytics, nothing. Just here's the ad, buy or don't.
    Do you have any background in advertising, rates, analytics, targeting demographics, anything?
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Do you have any background in advertising, rates, analytics, targeting demographics, anything?
    I've been a blogger and content marketer for over a decade. I also lost the best job I ever had when Google launched Panda and killed the site I was on for reasons apparently only Google knew about. That help?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    northern ontario
    Posts
    5,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    No - Who will pay for the PROPAGANDA?
    those who follow the message

    Antifa

    blm

    lgbqrstuvwxyz

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,578
    Why would anyone pay for what passes for "news" these days? I would trust eyewitness accounts on Twitter (which I don't use, but read here when posted) before I'd believe what a "journalist" tells me.

    I say let 'em go broke. The market will sort it out.
    Blue 5

    Wherever you are, wherever God takes you, fly high.
    -Edward Ormondroyd

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    69,465
    I spent 13 years working in the school where the Army teaches psychological operations. Usually the people pushing the message pay to broadcast it, not the consumer.

    This is something the communists never envisioned until now - getting the market to pay for the propaganda.
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Pensacola, Florida.
    Posts
    530
    pay someone to lie to me? lol

    as it is, certain sites I avoid just so they dont get one click from me, sounds small, yet it is something I can do personally.

    several stores and several products I just dont purchase because of the political stance and how they donate the profits.

    And, I dont feel alone.

  10. #10
    Sounds like an opportunity for a news aggregator, whose job is to sell very reasonably priced subscriptions which allow the subscribers unlimited access to a WIDE variety of news sources - big and small - unfiltered, fire hose-style - instead of costing $10 per month to access one news website, it might cost $5 per month to access 50, or more, news websites.

    The business plan would need to be worked out - maybe the aggregator splits the ad revenue with the source generators - you get the overall idea.


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    ó Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    I've been a blogger and content marketer for over a decade. ... That help?
    Don't have a clue what a content marketer does. You didn't answer in the affirmative on rates, analytics, demographics, so I guess that means No.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Don't have a clue what a content marketer does. You didn't answer in the affirmative on rates, analytics, demographics, so I guess that means No.
    You're half right. When you're a blogger and a content marketer you create the content that becomes advertising material. We don't deal in the minutiae of rates and demographics, but they're part of our own operations as the content we create usually reflects a target market.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    We don't deal in the minutiae of rates and demographics
    Your earlier post said you want to get rid of analytics and pay-per-click (which means targeting your key demographics at the lowest cost), but you apparently don't understand how it works. Ok, whatever.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  14. #14
    I agree with the post above...

    I don't wish to pay to be lied to or preached to.

    I don't need to be told cripples are normal, Gays are a huge population, or white men like me are whats wrong with america.

    They can die off for all I care.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,768
    I pay $5 a month for OANN. That's it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,768
    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    Sounds like an opportunity for a news aggregator, whose job is to sell very reasonably priced subscriptions which allow the subscribers unlimited access to a WIDE variety of news sources - big and small - unfiltered, fire hose-style - instead of costing $10 per month to access one news website, it might cost $5 per month to access 50, or more, news websites.

    The business plan would need to be worked out - maybe the aggregator splits the ad revenue with the source generators - you get the overall idea.


    intothegoodnight
    Or perhaps $12 a year. Like, I dunno, TB...?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Your earlier post said you want to get rid of analytics and pay-per-click (which means targeting your key demographics at the lowest cost), but you apparently don't understand how it works. Ok, whatever.
    Yes, I do want to get rid of those things. Because analytics and pay-per-click are what give rise to clickbait. If clickbait is no longer rewarded, then people can write articles again without having to focus on traffic and getting views by any means necessary or available.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,768
    Because analytics and pay-per-click are what give rise to clickbait.


    "People who do this one thing live longer" (Click to read)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    Yes, I do want to get rid of those things. Because analytics and pay-per-click are what give rise to clickbait. If clickbait is no longer rewarded, then people can write articles again without having to focus on traffic and getting views by any means necessary or available.
    Got it.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Because analytics and pay-per-click are what give rise to clickbait.


    "People who do this one thing live longer" (Click to read)
    Gasp! I'd better click on that right away to find out what that one weird thing is!

    Oh wait, it's exercise more. Well I just wasted a click and someone got paid.

    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Got it.
    Am I wrong?

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    Am I wrong?
    Well, you got a baby/bathwater situation. Billions of dollars are spent in all markets and media based on analytics. Schedule/media buying is an art form, highly technical. I was on the fringes of it about 30 years ago, doing what was then leading-edge programming. It's how an advertiser avoids wasting money. Saying all that is discardable because of an internet gimmick is definitely a scorched-earth policy. But if one's view is narrow enough, your argument can sound reasonable.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Well, you got a baby/bathwater situation. Billions of dollars are spent in all markets and media based on analytics. Schedule/media buying is an art form, highly technical. I was on the fringes of it about 30 years ago, doing what was then leading-edge programming. It's how an advertiser avoids wasting money. Saying all that is discardable because of an internet gimmick is definitely a scorched-earth policy. But if one's view is narrow enough, your argument can sound reasonable.
    Well, I'm not unaware of the advertiser side of it. Of course advertisers don't want to waste money, and they certainly want the most out of ad spend. Yet seeing how this trend has gone over the last few years--the entire concept of SEO is proof enough, I'd say--the push to improve advertiser value has come at the cost of consumer / reader value.

    While advertisers have gotten progressively better ad results, readers have gotten clickbait and hyperoptimized articles that don't deliver actual value.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    I spent 13 years working in the school where the Army teaches psychological operations. Usually the people pushing the message pay to broadcast it, not the consumer.

    This is something the communists never envisioned until now - getting the market to pay for the propaganda.
    THIS! The media organizations forgot the golden rule … the consumer is always right. However, the dingalings just don't get that their product is failing. They are supposed to provide facts. The "pretty face" of the weather girl and lead male anchor was supposed to be a joke. They've reversed everything … the pretty faces with empty heads are supposed to be serious reporters and rather than facts they try and feed people propaganda. Sucks to be them. People just don't trust them any longer and when you've lost the trust of your customer base you die an economic death.
    Find my free fiction stories here.

    "Isnít it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?Ē - Kelvin R. Throop III

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathy in FL View Post
    THIS! The media organizations forgot the golden rule … the consumer is always right.
    That's not the Golden Rule. For the media, the advertiser is always right, and the consumer is a renewable crop that can be harvested in myriad ways. Big Media is collecting your information not to serve you better but to sell your eyeballs to whoever will pay.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  25. #25
    I would pay, cheerfully, for factual balanced news. Not opinions. Not slant. But x happened. Here are the facts of what happened. Both sides. Etc.
    That I would pay for.
    But not the slant. The opinions. The egos and the bs. I don' t want an echo chamber. I just want the facts and to be left to form my own thoughts/opinions on my own.
    Please, come say Hi! and share your experience/knowledge. I love to learn.

    http://survivingtothrivin.blogspot.com/

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    State of confusion
    Posts
    9,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    I spent 13 years working in the school where the Army teaches psychological operations. Usually the people pushing the message pay to broadcast it, not the consumer.

    This is something the communists never envisioned until now - getting the market to pay for the propaganda.
    Bring your own rope...
    "...Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the cats of war..."
    Itís a real pisser when your belief system gets T-boned by reality.
    Iím not afraid of dying...I just donít want to be there!
    ...sell your cloak, and buy a sword...Second Amendment 1.0

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    69,465
    BUY your own rope, to be hanged with. Amazing 'Murkins can be SO gullible.
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,217
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    That's not the Golden Rule. For the media, the advertiser is always right, and the consumer is a renewable crop that can be harvested in myriad ways. Big Media is collecting your information not to serve you better but to sell your eyeballs to whoever will pay.
    And yet, with all of that inglorious data gathering, they still don't get it right. What you look at online isn't necessarily what you pay for in real life.
    Find my free fiction stories here.

    "Isnít it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?Ē - Kelvin R. Throop III

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    I pay $5 a month for OANN. That's it.
    I did for many, many months.

    Dropped it when we did DirectTVNow for sports and OANN is carried there.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathy in FL View Post
    And yet, with all of that inglorious data gathering, they still don't get it right. What you look at online isn't necessarily what you pay for in real life.
    They play the odds, not individual cases. Advertising brings in more buyers. The media gets paid for the ads, and the advertisers pay because they think they're getting their money's worth. Within their frame of reference, they're getting it right.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    . . . seeing how this trend has gone over the last few years--the entire concept of SEO is proof enough, I'd say--the push to improve advertiser value has come at the cost of consumer / reader value.
    And, I would add - reader privacy - we are tracked EVERYWHERE we go; how long we visit a website, where we went and what we viewed while on a given website - yet, unless one is technically savvy, opting out of the tracking is nearly impossible - and, because of the several tracking methods/gimmicks employed by the ad industry, et al, it can be difficult for even a tech savvy individual to reliably button up their privacy quotient, and KEEP it buttoned up - they STILL sneak in and track, unnoticed, in various ingenious ways.

    All tracking needs to be STOPPED - the consumers have become the de facto product in this failed model, and are unable to reliably and easily opt OUT of such determined tracking.

    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    They play the odds, not individual cases. Advertising brings in more buyers. The media gets paid for the ads, and the advertisers pay because they think they're getting their money's worth. Within their frame of reference, they're getting it right.
    . . . Fourth Amendment be damned. I did not "give them" the right to track my internet comings and goings (I know, read the EULA fine-print - do you, for EACH possible instance of trackers, etc.?)

    Cui bono?


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    ó Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    I did not "give them" the right to track my internet comings and goings
    You didn't give them the right, but you gave them the ability. They're depending on you not understanding what they're about. Mostly that works.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    You didn't give them the right, but you gave them the ability. They're depending on you not understanding what they're about. Mostly that works.
    bw - kindly explain for all of the readers exactly what you are saying - in layman's terms, please.


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    ó Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    bw - kindly explain for all of the readers exactly what you are saying - in layman's terms, please.
    Ever read a EULA? By enrolling in the various forums/services/chats/etc. you signed up for THEIR decisions on privacy and exploitation. You didn't read it because no one does. In the process you gave away your rights to privacy. You didn't mean to; you wouldn't have if you'd known. But the license is written by EXPERTS and was tuned by people who know how to leverage psychology. Anyone who gets on Facebook, for example, has exposed themselves to data hoovering that they would NEVER have agreed to in rational thought. But they got on FB because their friends told them they had to get on FB, so they scroll to the bottom of a thirty page text file that has never been read by mortal man, and they hit Accept.

    If I'm not clear enough, please pose a follow-up.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,217
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    They play the odds, not individual cases. Advertising brings in more buyers. The media gets paid for the ads, and the advertisers pay because they think they're getting their money's worth. Within their frame of reference, they're getting it right.
    Then they suck as poker players otherwise those using that directed ads crap wouldn't be in the toilet for income. How many of us have programs on our computers to prevent seeing ads? How many of us stop going to websites that have excessive ads we can't block? How many of us actually click on those stupid ads to create online revenue for the sites? How many of us have dropped regular tv and gone for streaming where we can control the number of ads we see. Frankly it just doesn't matter how much they try and shove things in our face, that type of directed ad revenue is a failure from the starting gate Ö except for the directed ad company who are being paid by fools like the news agencies who are going broke because instead of prioritizing content quality, they are prioritizing their agenda and expecting the money to come along side
    Find my free fiction stories here.

    "Isnít it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?Ē - Kelvin R. Throop III

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathy in FL View Post
    Then they suck as poker players otherwise those using that directed ads crap wouldn't be in the toilet for income.
    They aren't in the toilet; they're doing very well.

    How many of us have programs on our computers to prevent seeing ads?
    Almost none. That you are even asking that question puts you in the most cautious .1%. The money is being made on the 99.9%.

    How many of us stop going to websites that have excessive ads we can't block?
    Almost none. The sheeple mostly just put up with it. The ad revenue rolls in.

    How many of us actually click on those stupid ads to create online revenue for the sites?
    Enough to pay the freight.

    How many of us have dropped regular tv and gone for streaming where we can control the number of ads we see.
    Quite a few. And the ads you see are targeted at exactly the kind of person you are, and are paid for on that basis, and they get the eyeball count they pay for.

    Frankly it just doesn't matter how much they try and shove things in our face, that type of directed ad revenue is a failure from the starting gate
    Your naivete is charming.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    172,768
    Quote Originally Posted by bw View Post
    Ever read a EULA? By enrolling in the various forums/services/chats/etc. you signed up for THEIR decisions on privacy and exploitation. You didn't read it because no one does. In the process you gave away your rights to privacy. You didn't mean to; you wouldn't have if you'd known. But the license is written by EXPERTS and was tuned by people who know how to leverage psychology. Anyone who gets on Facebook, for example, has exposed themselves to data hoovering that they would NEVER have agreed to in rational thought. But they got on FB because their friends told them they had to get on FB, so they scroll to the bottom of a thirty page text file that has never been read by mortal man, and they hit Accept.

    If I'm not clear enough, please pose a follow-up.
    Once these companies are declared public utilities and regulated to enforce free speech, their respective EULAs will be meaningless.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Olson View Post
    Once these companies are declared public utilities and regulated to enforce free speech, their respective EULAs will be meaningless.
    Yeah. Would that we can get there.
    Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.