by Mike Masnick
Thu, Nov 6th 2008 1:14am
There's a great opinion piece by Shane Richmond on the website for the UK's Telegraph newspaper, pointing out that various newspaper execs complaining about the fact that news is free online seem to be missing the point. They are complaining about news being available for free, and claiming that if newspapers had agreed to charge online from the beginning things would be different. But, as Richmond points out, the only real way they'd be different is that no one would get their news from newspapers (online or otherwise) any more. News was going to be free online from the beginning because it's the fundamental nature of information. When it's abundant, it becomes free. That's your basic economics of supply and demand at work. The whole theory that newspapers could charge is based on the false assumption that the only sources for news would be newspapers. If all newspapers charged, it would open up a huge opportunity for other news sources to make the news free online -- and then why would people pay the newspapers? It's sad, in this day and age, that so many newspaper execs still don't understand this basic fact -- because, until they do, they'll never really be able to adopt web-aged business models. Instead, they'll just keep (incorrectly) regretting that they didn't charge.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Spotify (Basically) Tells Its Free Users, 'Go Pirate!'
- PayPal Kills Canadian Paper's Submission To Media Awards Because Article Had Word 'Syrian' In The Title
- Struggling Canadian News Agencies Ask Government For A 'Google Tax'
- Streisand Effect Derails Man's Analog Plan To Buy Up All The Newspapers Detailing His DWI Arrest
- You Have To Distort The Facts Pretty Badly To Argue That Google & Facebook Are Worse For Consumers Than AT&T