Would newspaper micro payments influence what kind of stories get printed?
Greg Horowitz brings up an excellent point. Would newspapers, after installing micro payments, be able to resist analyzing too closely what types of stories are getting purchased, thereby influencing what stories they pursue? Just as newspapers try to erect a strict wall between advertising and editorial, must they build a similar structure between the accountants and the editors?
What exactly do these people think that newspaper execs will do with data showing exactly how profitable every single article is? Just sit on that information? Or will they use it to make business decisions about which departments, types of articles and individual journalists are delivering the most ROI? “Sorry, Woodward, we know you won the Pulitzer last year, but your articles only generated $97.85 in revenue, so we’re going to have to let you go.†Of course, it wouldn’t just influence the executives. Journalists themselves would start shading their stories to what sells, and the most successful would be the ones who were the best salespeople (or who knew the most tricks). Get ready for a lot less zoning-board recaps and a lot more “Top 10 Sexual Positions.â€
Wait, so journalists would have to start working on stories there’s an actual market for, instead of feeling like they are using the rubes buying the paper for the obituaries to subsidize their higher pursuits?
Maybe zoning board recaps are really really important. But if people aren’t actually willing to pay you to produce them then tough luck, chum. No one has a civic duty to pay the NYTimes extra money for articles they aren’t going to read. And if you want to write those articles, then find a different revenue stream to subsidize that sort of work.
This is something I’ve wondered about for a long time:
http://reporter-g.blogspot.com/2008/04/hits-based-journalism-kevin-roderick-at.html