Adam Tinworth, head of blogging at the RBI, came and spoke to us this week. Having spent a lot of time focusing on the ‘digital revolution’ and the democratising of information and media, it was odd to look at blogging from such a business-focused perspective. It made sense though, obviously, given that we all want to get paid.
Considering that he was so financially-minded, it was surprising that Adam was so supportive of blogging. Blogs, after all, are a supposed to be a great equaller, taking the power of information away from the hands of the privileged few with the use of a printing press and good distrubtor, and putting it in the hands of anyone with some knowledge and an internet account.
But to scurry behind a paywall at the thought of all this would be to completely misunderstand the nature of the threat, Adam argued. It would be to think of competition in a traditional sense, another print edition next to yours in a shop, providing fairly similar content for a fairly similar price. Instead, what the traditional media is facing is an unmeasurably vast ‘conversation’, contributed to by anyone discussing the same subject, be that behind another paywall, in a blog, on a forum, on Twitter…wherever.
The democracy offered with this, and the chance for people to become truly involved and engaged with a subject, is not something that traditional media can compete with. Instead, we should aim to become part of the conversation by offering up free online content and connecting with others who are discussing the same thing. It is no longer a one-way street.
The RBI business model, however, still relies on content safeguarded behind a paywall. The strategic aim of the blogs was to direct traffic towards this content. For RBI, who provide detailed specialist information, this may be appropriate, but it didn’t really seem to be a solution. After all the inspiring talk about the ‘digital revolution’, it seemed somehow perverse to be talking about bl0gs in such a cynical way.
The question seemed to remain unanswered: outside of the highly specialised trader markets that RBI deal with, how can journalists expect to get paid for researching and producing high-quality material while being a part of the digital age?
Am I being naive to want to believe John Bernstein’s argument – maybe the ad-funded, free-to-the-consumer model may still work? It might just be that we have looked upon advertising in the wrong way. Citing Chris Anderson, the ex-Wired editor, from his book ‘Free: The Future of a Radical Price’, Bernstein argues that traditional advertising has had value due to a scarce resource – space.
The argument against online advertising has been that, as the internet is boundless, space is no longer a scarce resource and therefore loses value. However, there is something that the internet has over print. The extent of engagement and interactivity of the average internet-user wields a lot of information; this can be used to target ads.
It’s a scary thought, and I doubt anyone enjoys Facebook ads asking them if they’re feeling lonely straight after a break-up. But as Kevin Kelly, another ex-Wired editor, argued on TED, perhaps embracing this new lack of privacy is the price we pay for a new level of co-operation on the internet, and, as long as we live in a capitalist society, someone somewhere will always want to sell us something.
Pingback: The golden age of journalism « Online journalism