The theory is good, but incomplete. Brand is still something that brings people in, but user experience can keep them – just ask any iphone/ipad owner. I am not a fan of News Corp but their iPad app offers a great UX. I return to sites that offer good content plus a nice UX. I recent;y stopped picking up Metro from my station and have started paying 20p per day for the new “i” newspaper. Metro’s crap journalism was making me ill, i’s style is intelligent, broad, concise and – crucially – I love the layout of the paper. It’s a great UX. I’ll pay for that.

In reality, haven’t most content creation efforts been totally advertising supported? How many newspapers and magazines have generated substantially more subscription and newsstand revenue than their costs to print and deliver the physical publications? I’d say that people have been paying for the means of distribution as much as for the content.

Also, way too many publications like to assume that their content is so “valuable” that people can’t do without it or get the equivalent elsewhere. Arrogant assumptions of superiority are not the likeliest route to survival. I take a 20 minute subway ride to work. Some days, if I don’t have my Ipad with me and I am bored I will spend 50 cents to buy a newspaper to read on the train. I am paying for the convenience of having something disposable that I can read on the train, nothing more. The content may amuse me for 20 minutes, but it is nothing I cannot do without, nor is it something I would consider paying for on the Internet if I have access to the broader world of content.

It is time for the industry to stop whining and start adapting…and part of that means cutting massively bloated cost structures that are legacies from the days when they had a sort of monopoly. And if you want people to pay for content it better be good, original, and very targeted. No one needs to pay to get shallow articles covering headlines or sports scores.

is this the future of news…

Is that a “dichotomy”?

How about “amateur pundit”?

How did I get to this Web site, any way?

I stumbled across it, some how.

Was doing so my destiny? Pure chance or perhaps sheer luck?

Will the fate of the entire free world be altered?

Could peace and prosperity suddenly break out across the globe with even the idiots infesting the “government” of North Korea apologizing for their horde of anti-social behavior and adopting friendler ways of managing their citizens and attempting to be friendly to other countries?

Imagine the potential possibilities of my arrival at this Web site!!!!!

Amazed am I at the tremendous array of ramifications that could result at my, the Disgruntled Old Coot, arriving at this particular Web site.

The universe itself may tremble.

And that, kids, is a LOT of trembling!!!

You are looking at a giant evolution of both the information delivery (broadcast TV, print, etc.) AND communications (home phone, mobile phone) platforms — they are all moving to one, the internet. As much as scholars, experts, etc. would like to believe this will change the models that have endured countless innovations and new platforms over time, it won’t. Just how consumers receive this information.

The issue with the content business being broken boils down to basic ignorance. A market that believes consumers won’t pay for content over the internet, despite that consumers do and have for more than ten years, and that refuses to create a compelling product, in part because it doesn’t understand what drives consumers to enjoy content, and in part because it’s limited because it relies on a model (ad-only) that has never worked well in its business.

There was a barrier of entry with devices previously, but that has finally changed with lean back devices that feel more organic and natural to the experience. It’s worth noting this has been possible for probably a half decade, but a clueless market unwilling to learn delayed its arrival, just like all of the above too. :)