Media Curmudgeon

« Content Shouldn't Be Free | Main | Diane Mermigas »

October 04, 2007

All Content Is Not the Same

Bill Grimes responded to my post “The Future: Non-Profit News?” with a thoughtful piece titled “Content Should Not Be Free.” I agree with most of what Bill wrote, although I feel that he somewhat misinterpreted the point I was making. I was not suggesting that content should be free, but that serious, journalistically responsible news content should be freed from the tyranny of the popular and that some of it be subsidized through the instrument of non-profit foundations.

However, Jesse Kornbluth pointed out to me that all content is not the same, that there is a big difference between video and text content. And, of course, he’s right. In an article in the Wall Street Journal by Bobby White titled “Its Creators Call the Internet Outdated, Offer Remedies,” Larry Roberts, one of the founders of the Internet, is quoted as saying, "The Internet wasn't designed for people to watch television. I know because I designed it." The article also details the concerns of several experts who complain that the Internet's current infrastructure is insufficient “to handle the explosion of bandwidth-hungry services such as Internet telephony and video. In a recent report, Cisco calculated that monthly Internet traffic in North America will increase 264% by 2011 to more than 7.8 million terabytes, or the equivalent of 40 trillion email messages. If such Internet traffic continues increasing, many believe networks could crash or at least slow to a crawl.” In other words, YouTube videos and entertainment are clogging up the web.

But, as Bill Grimes points out, there is a growing trend of people paying for content as evidenced by increased expenditures for cable television. There is also a growing trend of more and more content being offered for nothing (and much of it worth that, this blog excluded of course) in return for people receiving ads on free content. These two contradictory trends are examples of diametrically opposed small trends that are fascinatingly explained by Mark Penn in his excellent book microtrends, a title which he almost too preciously explains begins with a small “m.” So as Rupert Murdoch prepares to make Wall Street Journal text content free on the web, more people are supporting their local NPR radio stations with donations during the begathons.

When people watch videos on their mobile phones, they pay for it in the form of increased bandwidth usage charges. When they watch video on the web, it’s free, or, rather, there is no additional charge over what it costs for a broadband connection. So, I think we’re coming to a time in the near future when people will be charged for Internet usage based on how many bits they consume—a reasonable number of emails sent and received, a reasonable number of websites read, and a reasonable number of videos used. That way, people who send out a billion spam emails will be charged for excessive use, people who watch ten videos a day will be charged for excessive use, users who watch the NY Times’ A.O. Scott’s video movie review instead of reading it will pay a little more. Internet usage is approaching a state of the tragedy of the commons, which, like global warming (another tragedy of the commons scenario), needs to be addressed.

Finally, non-profit news organizations would not eliminate advertising. Advertising is important; it’s a way of paying for news coverage and of getting product information and ideas out to consumers. Non-profit news organizations would try to maximize revenue in order to maximize the quality of its product, not to maximize the financial return to shareholders—in essence the shareholders are citizens who need reliable, fair, balanced, accurate information in order to make informed decisions about our democracy, otherwise we might elect Paris Hilton president.

Posted by Charles Warner at October 4, 2007 11:22 AM

Comments

Media Curmudgeon at October 4, 2007 12:29 PM writes:

Post a comment