Imagine if newspapers or even news organizations ceased to exist. Imagine that an entity such as the New York Times stopped producing news forever. Now of course with a company as reputable as the New York Times, such a possibility most likely will not come true any time in the near future, however, the desire to obtain news increases, news organizations’ revenues are decreasing at a great rate. Is there a way that news can be monetized such that people will still seek the news they get now for free for a price in the future?
Image from Google
My idea for monetizing the Internet without compromising people’s wallets would include a tiered pricing plan backed by a guarantee that the news a person receives is credible. Imagine a Society of Journalists, which existed to “certify”or professionalize journalists as they once were. Right now, practically anyone can be a journalist as long as they know how to write well and obtain their own footage with the proper resources like digital recording cameras. While it is great that news can be told in a variety of ways that was not possible before by a countless number of people, this has also lead to the mesh of news with entertainment, opinion, and so forth, such that it is hard to find many reliable and credible news outlets.
Anyone who would want to be a part of the Society would have to pay dues to help fund the system until the recession blows over, until advertisers could make more profits. Current reputable news organizations like the New York Times or The Washington Post would already have the qualifications to be a part of the Society, and they and other news organizations could pick a member to be part of a Board for the Society to help induct other growing or start-up news organizations that have gained enough popularity and stability to qualify to be a part of the Society.
This idea wouldn’t stop individuals from writing about news themselves, however the Society along with limited viewing possibilities of stories and the implementation of mandatory subscription payments by all news organizations would help prevent misinformed individuals from publishing questionable material pertaining to the news. Also, the Society would separate regular news from credible news that could be relied upon since the journalists who wrote it would be certified. Isn’t it comforting to have a doctor who went to medical school perform surgery on you as opposed to one who didn’t? The same should hold true for news. People would pay knowing that they were getting a quality service instead of any service, and so that they wouldn’t have to sift through the Internet.
In terms of pricing, there could be a tiered model, much like what cable providers do for different levels of service, however with news the difference in price would separate the quantity of news an individual would want to obtain; the quality would remain the same throughout (ideally the best there is). Individuals could subscribe to daily feeds or liner ledes for a small price. This would serve people who seek quick news on the go and could view it easily on their smart phones. For a slightly greater price, people could subscribe to the feeds and longer format stories. This might interest individuals of older generations, who are already used to the New York Times’ stories with jumps and more in-depth reporting. For people interested in being informed about a particular topic, or those who want to write a story continuing an ongoing issue, they could subscribe to archives.
While some of these ideas may seem radical compared to the current business model, they attempt to prompt thought into individuals about the news that want to see decades from now, not to mention the fact that in case you didn’t know, everyone is scrambling to find a way to make money in the journalism industry.
