Group Awesome: Taylor, Julie, Julia, Faizan

We made  $1,387.13

Alexiz, Anna Catherine, Avery & Claudia

Nikki, Molly, Alex and Josh

Selah Maya, Faith Ann, Perla, Estelita

We made $458.33.

Robyn, Rebecca, Bryna, Clemmie, Ali stock update

We made $313.58. (FoxA and NYT were profitable.)

As a soon-to-be journalism grad, I hate the "free" economy

I use a lot of "free" platforms. I use YouTube. I use Facebook. I use Google. I use Spotify. I benefit from the services they provide, I won't deny that.  I am completely onboard with the concept of technological platforms becoming "free" as user bases increase and technology improves. I am not onboard with the "free" model of journalism that Chris Anderson outlines in his pieces for WIRED.

Journalism isn't a technological platform. It's a process - and it takes a lot of time and man power. The cost of man power hardly decreases with increasing user bases (that don't pay) and improving technology. However in "Dear Malcolm: Why So Threatened?," Anderson suggests that crowdsourcing unpaid contributors for a blog, while paying a content "community" manager is a sustainable model in this "free" economy and perhaps the future of some forms of journalism.

I would like to argue that not only is this not sustainable; it's not journalism. I went to GeekDad.com, the blog Anderson uses as an example in his writing, and there is no original reporting done for the site; what is on the site is reviews, opinions and advice. While this is media content,  it is hardly providing the new information and context that serves as the basis for journalism.  If contributors are just voicing opinions, it is easy (and maybe even fun) to write on the side as an unpaid hobby. But if these contributors were required to invest a great deal of time and effort into finding new stories, finding sources and producing text, video and interactive media, I am betting that they would want compensation.

Actual information, actual reporting is worth something, but its worth is being diluted by those who see what blogs do as journalism.

For me this is increasingly frustrating as I try to find a career in the journalism field. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told, "start a blog and gain an audience," as if I can afford to write and produce journalism without being paid for an indefinite amount of time. I have a website and it displays clips from the journalism work I have done through school, through student publications, and through professional internships. I have been trained in journalism and gained experience in journalism, just as any other profession goes to school to get training. You don't expect nurses who have graduated to work for free, why should trained journalist work for nothing? Yet there is this expectation due to the loads of free (non) journalism on the web that actual journalism should be free as well. This translates into fewer and fewer jobs for trained journalists and will eventually mean that actual journalism will disappear from the internet. I hope you enjoy listicles masquerading as news because I believe that's what more and more of journalism will become in the "free" economy.

Quality or Crud: Are you willing to pay?

Anderson references a generation raised on free information.  And while, as a journalist, Anderson's article makes me bristle all over (despite a few very key points), I think that this statement he makes holds some truth: “a generation raised on the free Web is coming of age, and they will find entirely new ways to embrace waste.” But as I shift through the thousands of opinion blog posts and cat videos on YouTube and the millions and millions of uploads of online content, I start to wonder…is the waste worth it? Are we just cluttering our minds and our devices with this flood of free information that has lost all usefulness and interest? We are angry that the perfect result doesn't come up to the top of our Google inquiry. But we demand endless free information. We get angry when we have to see an ad first.  At the same time, we refuse to pay for quality.  And then we expect the companies who provide it for free to be up to the caliber of subscription-based models. Because we are the greedy “generation raised on the free Web.”

I don’t want to beat a dead horse here.  We have had many discussions in this class that yes, “information wants to be free.” But, no journalists will not work for free. Yes, anyone can start a blog or publish online content. Yes, advertising supports it. Yes, companies can offer 24 news reporting and round the clock information. No, that does not mean all of the content out there will be quality or even true.

There is a lot I could say concerning the plight of poorly paid journalists and how sad poorly reported news makes me.  There is a lot I could say about this whole paragraph of Anderson’s on corporate tech companies who I feel robbed by: “Just because products are free doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, isn't making huge gobs of money. Google is the prime example of this.” ...But I think we have discussed that enough.

I think that Anderson himself actually makes a point that I’m not sure he intended to make…or at least a point that I found more interesting and less infuriating than the rest of his article. “There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later.”

We may not want to pay for reputation, but at some point when we get tired of shift through pages of crap after pages of more crap online (excuse my french), we are willing to pay for quality.  At some point, that Spotify user pays for Premium. At some point, someone who wants to read real news pays for a subscription to the New York Times, or another reputable establishment. Because as great as I think community journalism could be, I do not believe that volunteer writers could ever produce the kind of journalism that changes laws, that affects people, that tells the whole truth, and that inspired me to be a journalist. 

And while information is not as hot of a commodity as it used to be because of it’s abundance, reputable and interesting information to cut through all the crap online IS scarce.  And I think that (to borrow Anderson’s own phrase) the long-tail of people who are willing to pay for quality of sit through that ad to get to the information they enjoy, trust or respect--the information that is worth it to them personally-- that will support the massive weight of the rest of the greedy “information generation.”

I agree with Malcolm Gladwell when he states that, "And there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online." They are making money by charging for content. Gladwell also points out the flaws of many of the champions of "free," champions of our generation, like You Tube which has failed to make Google any money.

So I am not sure what the answer is.  But I surely am not going to work for free.  And I am surely not going to accept mediocre content...just because it is free.

Digital content must be free

I for the most part agree with Anderson's argument. In order to gain a customer base you must decrease the amount of barriers for them. The leading barrier is usually the cost of the product. If a quality product is free and easily accessible to the masses, you can eventually create sources of revenue. This is why broadcast television, radio, and social platforms are free. This is Spotifiy and Pandora have became a giant player in the music industry. This will eventually become the main business model for all of the newspaper industry. 

I don't agree that they should make cut throat deals with Amazon. Newspapers need to collectively create a digital marketplace for their content thats driven by advertising revenue. By having the content be digital, free, and available on all platforms, they decrease the barriers that have been crippling physical newspapers.

I find flaws within Gladwell's attempt to refute Anderson's arguments.  The reason cable television and the iPhone have been so popular is because of the variety of content they offer. This is why Amazon was able to low ball the DMN, they bring the variety of newspapers to the public. Newspapers aren't able to do unless they work collectively together, which is why a middle man like Amazon is able to charge so much. 

Furthermore, you cannot compare Youtube's ad revenue model to the future business model of Newspapers. Taking an unlimited about of amateur videos and writing a limited amount of professional journalism are not exactly the same. $0.00 will be the future purchase price of the journalism because all digital content must eventually become free. This generation and future generations will demand it. However, worry not because everyone will still ample revenue through advertising. 

How will "free" affect the Middle Man

We live in a day and age where we want things now and we want them to cost us as little as possible - and even better if we can get it for free. Anderson talks about the beginning of this trend with his Gillette razor example. Gillette positioned their disposable razor blades within a cross-subsidy model, which we now see becoming more popular with other industries - particularly with technology sales. This trend of "free" is becoming the new normal, however, and I agree with Anderson that this notion of "free" is going to change everything.

The millennial generation has grown up with a free web, which is becoming the backbone of the future of technology. Although services online like Google and social media may be "free," someone has got to cover the costs. This is where advertisers come in. I believe that we are going to see an internet that is embedded with digital ads and digital marketing more intense than it is currently. Anderson's article was written in 2008 - just look at how things are being operated now; in 2016 Google makes $67 billion in ad revenue alone. Big tech hubs like Googe, Facebook, and Apple are recognizing the fact that technology consumers want "free" and, thus, there must be a middle man daddy warbucks to cover those costs. But, from an industry's perspective, are these tech gods like Google and Facebook taking advantage of this fact and charging companies too much for advertising? This video explains how Google charges a company for search ads - starting with bids from $4 per click to $1 per click. Companies must devote a lot of time and effort to perfect their quality of ads in order to be competitive within the digital market. What does this mean for consumers? Are we going to have to cover these costs when buying the physical products just so the company can keep up with the digital advertising demands? 

As an Advertising major, I am interested to see how the digital "free" world evolves and continues to play a role with consumers and advertisements. 

The Future is NOW

In Tom Lowery’s article titled “Why Mobile Is the Future of Advertising and Marking,” he states that print attracts only 7% of media attention, yet it receives 25 times more ad money than mobile does. When you consider what we have already learned about information conveyed through print – that is more emotionally impactful, more memorable, etc – how could we possibly believe that mobile is the future of advertising and marketing?

The short answer is that a mobile device allows customers to access certain resources that make their decision-making process and follow-through quick, easy, and reliable. Lowery explains that customers want a tailored and easy-to-use experience, and mobile devices cater to this desire.

An awareness of audience values is extremely important in determining an advertisement’s success. Ad success is defined by how many people who see the advertisement wish to purchase the product and/or feel that it is relevant to them. However, Lowery emphasizes that a viewer’s perception of a product or service is not solely influenced by the advertiser’s presentation; it is also influenced by other audience members’ opinions. According to this article (http://marketingland.com/survey-customers-more-frustrated-by-how-long-it-takes-to-resolve-a-customer-service-issue-than-the-resolution-38756), 90% of customers say that their buying decisions are based on customer reviews. Consider mobile sites such as Yelp or TripAdvisor – checking these sites has simply become the norm before deciding where to eat, what to do, and what is worth paying for. Mobile advertising considers the holistic process of advertising, and recognizes that a buyer’s decision is influenced by more than the words in a newspaper. While reading words on print does prove to be a more emotionally impactful experience than reading online, the power of another person’s experience and perspective outweighs that of a print ad.

Secondly, the future of advertising and marketing is mobile because it is extraordinarily convenient. This article (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#2ce49b102c9d) highlights the three “P’s” relevant to marketing as it relates to mobile devices: mobile allows the advertising scene to be personal, pervasive, and in close proximity. It is personal because each person owns a phone – therefore, people have an emotional attachment to the very source from which they are receiving the information. Because people carry their phones with them EVERYWHERE and are constantly looking at them, advertisers are given a plethora of opportunities to bombard users with advertisements. The amount of time that people spend looking at paper news or magazines is significantly less. Third, it allows for proximity – phones can detect your location and suggest restaurants, museums, or coffee shops in the area. This is the tailored service users want and mobile devices allow for follow-through.

The electronic ad infiltration seems to increase on a daily basis, and it is only a matter of time until “the future” of mobile advertising becomes "the present"!

The Price of Superiority

The debate over the future of how content will be accessed is interesting in how individuals choose to frame their arguements. One side seems to suggest that ultimately content and features will be free because the value gleaned from offering free services will result in profit from other areas. On the other side, some are once again skeptical of technology's ability to reduce goods and services so much that they become cheap and/or free to the consumer. I think ultimately content will be provided in a way that sits in the middle of these two philosophies.

The idea of offering goods and services for near free a price while making money off of another good or service is genius. It allows for a company to spread their brand through movement of goods and services in a flexible way that is beneficial to the consumer. The most important thing however if company do choose to take this route is that they must have a some product that is superior enough that consumers are willing to but it and that product must be bought repeatable buy consumers. Such a model would not work for newspapers or other written digital content providers because newspapers do not have another good or service to offer that consumers view as superior. In the age of increasingly free and cheap technology this does not bode well.

On the other hand, companies that offer only one service but a variety of options as well as superior content within that service could ultimately survive in such a marketplace. For example, Gladwell pointed to the Wall Street Journal and cable television as services that offer one basic good but have either superior content or a variety of options. However, newspapers have other options that many deem superior so this model will most likely not work out as well.

Ultimately, newspapers will have to find what platform helps them regain their superiority or they will no longer exist in their current format.

Anderson, Can We Not?

I feel as though we have talked about this topic several times over the semester, but I think we can all agree that there are certain limits to free and in some cases the customer will value a product/service so much that they are willing to pay. To be frank, I’m quite tired of all these tech/media gurus telling news corps that they’re dead, dying, outdated and costly. The three articles assigned are pretty entertaining and give a good debate so I’ll follow similar suit with Anderson’s response to Gladwell’s review of “Free.”

Anderson writes:

“There may be more of them, not fewer, as the ability to participate in journalism extends beyond the credentialed halls of traditional media. But they may be paid far less, and for many it won’t be a full time job at all. Journalism as a profession will share the stage with journalism as an avocation. Meanwhile, others may use their skills to teach and organize amateurs to do a better job covering their own communities, becoming more editor/coach than writer. If so, leveraging the Free—paying people to get other people to write for non-monetary rewards—may not be the enemy of professional journalists. Instead, it may be their salvation.”

Naturally Gladwell attacked this point of view by prosing how does one get another to work for non-monetary rewards?

Nonchalantly, Anderson went into this semi-altruistic story about his friend Ken, who is a civil engineer (basically, Ken makes good money already), and got him to write for his blog GeekDad. Ken is happy. GeekDad is happy and all in all Anderson gets enough credibility to propose a new business model for the newspaper industry? Not quite. To be fair, Anderson did state:

“Is it the model for the newspaper industry? Maybe not all of it, but it is the only way I can think of to scale the economics of media down to the hyperlocal level.”

What I think Anderson fails to understand is that professional and trained journalists don’t start blogs like GeekDad to earn a living. Therefore, the economics of community blogging or responsibility doesn’t require the attention of making a business model for it. 

In fact, personal blogging is an entire profession on its own these days. I follow a couple bloggers myself, so take Sazan Hendrix for example. You can learn more about her background from this interview: http://www.contiki.com/six-two/10-contiki-questions-with-fashion-blogger-sazan-barzani/

She’s a fashion and beauty blogger, posts weekly YouTube videos and describes herself as a “young influencer.” Sazan recognized that social blogging is a business venture and it has obviously served her bank account well.

There definitely isn’t a formula to success in blogging, but she did blog about being a full-time blogger and how she has been successful. Read here: http://sazan.me/blog/2014/07/10/blogging-faqs/

In short, can we please stop trying to predict grandiose business models for the newspaper corporations and continue to let them to do their civic duty to democracy without undervaluing their work?