Slashdot Mirror
Google Will Star In New Dow Jones News Model
An anonymous reader writes "Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism. 'The Journal is one of the many newspapers you might buy in one place and with one payment [...] Watch for it,' said Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton. However, rather than posing a threat to Google News, Andrew Keen, author and entrepreneur, says the aggregator will use Google as a critical partner. The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"
First Post! I like to get my news for free...
Someone tell MSNBC, CNN, and Foxnews they're no longer viable.
Hey, all you people getting value for free, you'd better watch out! You have to pay us now... for what you already get for free! Take that!
This guy must have been top of his class in Business School. I will follow his career with much interest.
They not only started charging for their content, but stuck with it long after other companies had moved to horifically low paying internet ads. The result is that people who subscribe to the WSJ online expect to pay for content, whereas people who use other news sites expect to get their news for free.
So lets see here.
Out of a ton of news aggregators, one is going to charge money for it? Clearly slashdot must feel threatened too.
The WSJ must provide some compelling, unique content otherwise this will just become another irrelevant website, with only a few viewers and even less revenue.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.
I guess I will have to go back and get my news from the television for free. Oh well.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
It's about time something like this happened. I am sick of hearing all the talk from newspapers about how evil the Internet is because they can't sell papers anymore, now maybe that they have finally decided to use a payment method for online news they will shut up. Will I actually pay for any of it? Probably not, I don't care that much about the type of news that is always reported in physical papers and there are plenty resources for science and tech news around that are not as concerned with the bottom line as the Dow Jones.
The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"
So, everyone?
Great marketing-- The only people who lose out are the consumers! That'll show the bastards!
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Maybe the public should start charging for making the news? Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning. Why should they get our stories for free? If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper. We should go on strike. No one do anything newsworthy for a week. That'll teach 'em!
Charging for high quality journalism? Wonder what NPR will do to the competition?
Does high-quality journalism even exist anymore?
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
Hinton is saying that the only people who shouldn't be happy with his new business plan are the very people he needs to voluntarily pay for his service? Somebody didn't think this through.
No, we have blogs. Blogs are not even close to journalism.
NPR is not free - it's paid for by donations. I suggest you make some less you want to lose it.
Website Hosting
"So Google -- which has never been in the content business -- will become the all-important vehicle that will deliver the punters to the Dow Jones walled garden of news."
So if I understand this correctly, after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime, Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime...
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
If they don't like it why not just slip a simple little robots.txt file in there and disable google's indexing? Or block everyone with a google.com as their http referrer?
I wonder how much traffic they would get then...
...which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.
So... they'll do quality fact checking back to prime sources, not Wikipedia?
And... they'll report conflicts of interest not only among their subjects but with their corporate overlord?
And... they'll report which moneyed interests stand to gain, every time?
And... they'll never ever ever accept paid publicity or promotional materials and report them as news?
And... they'll stop reporting what Britney Spears is doing?
And... they'll never invent another word like Brangelina again?
And... they'll carefully write political copy using neutral, non-loaded words and phrases, without bias?
Color me skeptical...
I would laugh, but it's too farkin' pathetic. "High-quality". Right...
I don't think Dow Jones is targeting the average consumer, but are targeting higher-end financial consumers, investors, financial advisers, etc. Maybe they are mostly "old" people ;)
In the financial world, there are still plenty of vendors who charge for their content-- Barron's, financial newsletters, Bloomberg's "Professional" news products, etc.
Overall, these vendors generally (But not always) provide good-quality, in-depth articles and opinions. People will read their copy of Barron's like a student reads a book, complete with bookmarks and highlighters.
While the free sites are cheap, many of the news sites are filled with noise, the forums are filled with scams (The comments at finance.google.com are entertaining to read).
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.
Great idea.
The only problem is a complete lack of high quality journalism today.
Since they plan to aggregate instead of provide something new, the idea is dead before it began.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
NPR is not free - it's paid for by donations.
I listen to NPR often, and I ain't paid nothing for it. So, it's free.
Anyone wants to start a bet on how long this "venture" will last ....few weeks / months/ years /?
I'm betting on 6 months!
...read the first two words of this article as "George Will"? I gotta stop watching ABC News so much.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
And that makes you a jerk.
(...me too)
Customers will love paying for what they already get for free, because people love throwing money away, amirite?
One of the things that's helped Google get away with aggregating other people's contents on their news service is the fact that Google News is non-commercial, doesn't run ads, and doesn't represent a revenue stream for Google. And they still got sued several times. If Dow Jones wants to do something similar, but charge for it, they may find themselves facing a whole stream of lawsuits, and may find that their defense is a lot less effective.
Except consumers don't get the news for free. We have to pay for our Internet connection (excluding those who steal it from their neighbors, wifi cafes are semi-free but you pay for it with the food you buy from them).
We also get bombarded with all those advertisements as well.
Stop crying newspapers. It works just like cable TV has for so many years.
Yes, but will they use slashcode?
that still doesn't make it free. someone else is just paying for you.
" ... are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free."
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your ... wait, how much?
Forget it.
News will now remain free. If the major providers put their shit behind pay-walls, one of two things will happen:
1) There's already a thriving eco-system of ad-financed blogs and other sites that basically do nothing but sift through, reword and extensively "quote" the stuff behind the login-prompts. These sites will just get bigger and stronger, eventually hiring more of their own staff. Since that's 90% of what traditional newspapers have been doing since the dawn of time, there is more than enough precedent for this business model.
2) If the going get's really tough, Wikinews or some other major non-profit payer will become as hugely popular as Wikipedia is now. If Britannica or Brockhaus had made all their content available for free under a reasonably license for personal use, Wikipedia would probably not be where it is now.
>that still doesn't make it free. someone else is just paying for you.
Someone else may be paying, but they have their own reasons.
Something can be locally free even if it uses resources. Does anything meet your definition of "free?"
Dow Jones has been running a news search and database service called Factiva ( http://www.factiva.com/ ) since 1999. It is primarily used in business (although they do take credit cards) and is a serious news database - thousands of news sources fed directly to it, taxonomies, APIs, the works. Head to head it kicks Google News' ass. If Dow Jones is developing a consumer version it could have a number of advantages over Google News that users may be willing to shell out for.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content. Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites. Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.
Now . . . what exactly is this new model being proposed? Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like. If they get enough people on board, it might work. Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably. (My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result. I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.)
Newsgathering costs money, sure. And there should be ways of making that money. But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall. If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.
I guess "TANSTAAFL" applies here.
No, there is nothing that is free of cost. It is paid for somewhere along the line.
The catch is when too many people delude themselves into thinking "oh I don't need to (pay|donate) because plenty of others will" that the number of (donors|buyers) drops under a critical level. I think it will start happening, at least for the mass internet audience who feel entitled to things for free.
"High quality" news from the man who brings you Fox News, the New York Post, the Sun.....
The "high quality" comment almost made me pee my pants. Less optional stuff for me to read.
Maybe this will cause a split - between the people who pay for their news and the people who will read random (free) blog style news.
..... However then again if Fox news charges and loses viewers this could help towards world peace....
Imagine the difference in world view. The split and level of knowledge of 'real news' may depend on wealth - not an ideal situation
I can imagine a newspaper pulling in money online by having free readers that can only read the body of news articles that are more than 30m-1hr old or possibly only short summaries of articles newer. And then having "premium subscribers" that pay a small fee to be able to read the news articles instantly with full coverage and analysis.
Possibly also having other premium features like ad free pages etc. Kinda like slashdot but more restricted.
Where are the weakness in this business model?
Someone has to actually DO that, first.
Before Watergate, journalism was what it was. Objective. Sure, they could WISH their guys would win, but they wouldn't jeopardize their standards to SAY so.
Then Watergate: reporters "take down" a president. Or so it appeared. Then all the sudden everyone signing up for journalism classes wants to "make a difference", which is NOT the intent of journalism at all. It's to REPORT THE ACTUAL NEWS.
Now, the three networks, who couldn't be bothered to get on a plane and go see the troops unless a nuke went off, were climing over themselves to take Obama there. Hey! How about the umpteen trips McCaine (the bastard) took and you wouldn't go?
And more recently, one network decided to broadcast a'la Provda, right from the White House on the issue of Healthcare, with no dissenting opinion. Da!
So yeah, if you can *find* high quality journalism, it's probably not American. Here, they don't bother to turn on a radio to learn about Limbaugh, they just use the 20-year-old stuff left behind by other 'journalists' and use presumptions. He's not racist, he's not homophobic, he's not a woman hater. But you'll ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU LISTEN.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
i'ts not entitlement, it's expectation. they brought their bandwidth to access your content and you provided yours to make it available. it is YOU who feels entitled. if you do not like just anyone accessing your site, TAKE IT DOWN.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've had at least one newspaper delivered to my house every day for the last few years, and I have not paid for a single one. My current free papers are the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.
It never fails - one way or another, I get free paper offers that usually last 6 months to a year. Usually they come in the mail (both home and work), or from an offer through my credit card company. The two local papers in my area occasionally drop their papers on my doorstep for a few months hoping to "hook" me. Between the free national papers, and the local ones, there is no shortage of free newspapers at my house.
Eventually the freebie ends and the publisher wants me to pay - to which I say "no thanks".
During the dry spells of free papers, I get my news through many online sources, or radio, or TV. Local news agencies have even started publishing news via free iPhone apps.
The end result of all of this is that there are just too many damn ways to get news for free. The cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and Elvis has left the building.
Ad supported "free" news is here and there is no going back.
-ted
This is how Obama got elected. People who have absolutely no clue how the economy works voting.
This would obviously have to be true for every American president in recent history then, right? What did either Bush do for our economy? Clinton managed to turn a deficit into a surplus, but it can be argued that his antagonism against blue collar American workers helped our current problems. Then we add the fact that there is much more to life than mere economics, and the fact that no one really understands how the economy actually works (last I checked there wasn't any consensus on this).
And some people voted for Obama because McCain would just be more "supply side" bull, which even though it is pretty much proven to be a pile of crap, Goldwater republicans somehow think that if they push it enough it will magically become viable, even if it never has been. Sadly Obama isn't much better, since he also follows the whole "make the uber rich (top 3%) happy, screw any actual creation of wealth" model, just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
This is how Obama got elected. People who have absolutely no clue how the economy works voting.
On the plus side, apparently a large proportion of the population understood how an improvement on foreign relations could be achieved. Even if Palin had and could see Russia (oh, man, one of the best jokes ever)
But seriously, Bush understood how the economy works? How did we end up in this mess then?
"The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits... a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."
After >30 years of journalism students being taught not to report the facts but to shape society, there is no high quality journalism. As an oxymoron "high-quality journalism" will never be as popular as "common sense", nor as misunderstood.