An indelicate definition but, considering 10 straight quarters of decline, the newspaper industry is not too far from becoming donation-based. Today, when a person pays for the news it’s by choice, rather than need.
This is not to say that we don’t value a good busker. When getting news online, sites operated by traditional media companies seem to be the most popular and trusted. Even though a slew of amateur reporters have entered the market, people still skew toward high quality output, choosing newspapers over blogs – but not paying for either.
Once neatly packaged into a few channels, the ‘news’ is now easier to come by than ever before. As Jim Gaffigan tweeted, “I remember when ‘breaking news’ meant breaking news. Now it means please don’t change the channel.” It went from relative scarcity to abundance, and subsequently devaluation.
A willing culprit in this devaluation is the Internet. To some, it’s a black-market of cackling bloggers, cyber high-fiving over the death of newspapers and the infringement of copyright. To others, it represents an opportunity to prove to readers, advertisers and investors that newspaper sites can provide something more than just another free source of news.
One such opportunist is British newspaper (now news-site), The Guardian. Last month, after revelations that politicians were using public funds to service their lifestyles, the British government released over 700,000 MP expense documents. More than simply reporting the release and stand out examples, The Guardian created an application that allowed people to search through each claim, invoice and purchase order.
“If you find something which you think needs further attention, simply hit the button marked ‘investigate this!’ and we’ll take a closer look,” encouraged The Guardian.
Within two days of going live, 97,466 documents were reviewed – the first major revelation being a £1000 claim for food by George Galloway. At the time of writing, a total 22,845 people had participated in the investigation.
The application is a shining example of what’s to come for news online. It turned readers into detectives, allowing them active participation in Britain’s biggest political scandal in the last decade. Who wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to exact hyper-local revenge on MPs running your electorate?
It was also a scalable news story.
Unlike a news article which quickly loses value as time goes on, this application provided an experience that could be lived and relived - separate to what’s going on in the news. The timeliness maxim of journalism is completely broken if you are doing more than just ‘informing’ readers. If, like the New York Times, the plan is to charge a monthly fee for content, then applications like this must become a feature of that cost to the consumer.
Monetizing experiences will be a big part of what’s to come. While everyone is saying that the Internet killed the news, it has in fact, given it a longer life cycle.
The 'news' can unfold across many different platforms, in many different forms. As we learn in Ivan's last post, the 'narrative' is often larger than the 'story.' Although, not everyone is clued into this perspective. The Guardian’s own Andrew Sparrow thought that the application would be a “bit of a non-event” after the crux of the story had hit the press days earlier. Sparrow’s hesitation is a dismissive wave of the hand at change, an inability to see an exciting range of potential value exchanges – from straight facts to non-linear experiences.
