>If everybody blocks ads on the things that are expensive to produce (The Atlantic's website, NYT/WSJ/WaPo/CNN/etc, pro-videos, whatever), I doubt that they can just switch to a "reputation" type of model.
Eh, I think that what value the newspaper houses will have going forward mostly has to do with their reputation, and how they can give legitimacy to a story or author, and how they keep the worst of the dregs out so that us consumers don't need to see them.
As for video news content, last time I was in the cafe with CNN that I frequent, the story (a missing white girl puff piece) was cut with shots of a video camera focusing on a computer monitor that was reloading twitter. I guess I'm not really a video news kind of guy, but I'm not really seeing how an enthusiast could do worse than that. Maybe I haven't spent enough time watching TV news to see the good stuff, but as far as I can tell, it's a wasteland.
Now, video entertainment? the commercial publishing houses still have that sewed up tight.
> Eh, I think that what value the newspaper houses will have going forward mostly has to do with their reputation, and how they can give legitimacy to a story or author, and how they keep the worst of the dregs out so that us consumers don't need to see them.
I'm not sure I follow you. How is reputation supposed to pay the bills? If the newspaper/site can't sell ads anymore, how do they make money?
> As for video news content, last time I was in the cafe with CNN that I frequent, the story (a missing white girl puff piece) was cut with shots of a video camera focusing on a computer monitor that was reloading twitter. I guess I'm not really a video news kind of guy, but I'm not really seeing how an enthusiast could do worse than that. Maybe I haven't spent enough time watching TV news to see the good stuff, but as far as I can tell, it's a wasteland.
Sure there's tons of crap, but that goes for everything. 90%+ of anything is crap, including books, etc, but what about the good part? How do they make money on reputation? That's what I still don't understand. If you are a consultant with a blog, that makes sense, it drives other business. But if your main business is content creation, how does it help if nobody can sell ads and very few can make a living with high subscription fees.
>I'm not sure I follow you. How is reputation supposed to pay the bills? If the newspaper/site can't sell ads anymore, how do they make money?
there are all sorts of ways to earn money from reputation, some being more shady than others.
One path is the public broadcasting model. accept donations from people who support the work you do, and the low cost of distribution becomes an advantage rather than a disadvantage. (would this be sustainable without the government support that NPR gets? I don't know. I'm given to understand that we may find out shortly.)
Is there a conservative equivalent of NPR?
There are all sorts of other ways you can transform reputation in to money. For corporations, the line between buying advertising and giving to charity is quite blurry; there are all sorts of underexploited opportunities along those lines. Sure, people block banner ads, but the 'paid for by corporation X' link or announcement? I think that can create real credibility and real goodwill. My company has spent more money supporting things I want to be associated with than on banner ads because I think it's a more effective way to advertise.
I agree that this can work for some things, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it can work on anywhere near the scale that ads work on.
Eh, I think that what value the newspaper houses will have going forward mostly has to do with their reputation, and how they can give legitimacy to a story or author, and how they keep the worst of the dregs out so that us consumers don't need to see them.
As for video news content, last time I was in the cafe with CNN that I frequent, the story (a missing white girl puff piece) was cut with shots of a video camera focusing on a computer monitor that was reloading twitter. I guess I'm not really a video news kind of guy, but I'm not really seeing how an enthusiast could do worse than that. Maybe I haven't spent enough time watching TV news to see the good stuff, but as far as I can tell, it's a wasteland.
Now, video entertainment? the commercial publishing houses still have that sewed up tight.