Testing CUNY's New Business Models with Adjusted Assumptions

My poking and probing shows that when the assumptions are changed to less optimistic but still reasonable scenarios, the models can swing to much lower profit levels or even losses.

My latest Poynter e-Media Tidbits column

Thoughts on the Call for WashPost and Times to Charge

Here's a roundup of David Simon's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review, calling for the New York Times and Washington Post to put up a pay wall on Sept 1, in context, and what it means for someone trying to be an entrepreneurial journalist.

For the Business Assessment Area of the Reynolds Journalism Institute's "Collaboratory" project.

Is 'Free' The Right Price for News?

Tad Smith, the CEO of Reed Business, home to dozens of publications including Variety, Broadcast and Cable, and Multichannel News last week on CNBC questioned the idea that “free” is the best price for media. “Price communicates a lot of value, and when it’s free, it really says it’s not worth anything,” he said, also noting that we’re conditioned to believe, “you get what you pay for.”



In another part of the show, not in this linked video, he said that Reed is considering charging for its publications that are currently free online.

What do you think? Can ads, alone, support a news operation? What are the other means to doing so -- subscription, e-commerce, events, and so on. Should you charge -- especially if your site is for a limited audience defined either by geography or subject? How can you figure it out before taking the first steps?

Log on and share your thoughts here. The Reynolds Journalism Institute's Business Assessment group is coming up with pointers.

The Business of News - Can You Help?

Over at the Collaboratory, a project of the Reynolds Journalism Institute, I'm putting together pointers on what makes journalism a business today -- how can someone, for example, evaluate whether a project is viable: is there enough ad revenue, other revenue streams, what are the costs of staffing, technology and so on.

Here's the link. Love to have your input, thoughts, and experience.

Concerns Over "The Infinite TiVo"

Screenwriter John August writes that federal authorities should limit Comcast's ability to provide DVR services based at Comcast's facilities because that will effectively remove the desire for repeats and the residuals that come with them, as well as DVDs and the like. After all, if a consumer can get any TV show or movie they want at any time -- via, say, a function that tells Comcast to "record all," and then deciding later whether and what to watch, why would anyone every need to watch (or TiVO) a rerun, buy a show's DVD, etc. And, therefore, how would writers make money off the residuals and DVD sales, etc, August asks.

But the solution is probably not in limiting Comcast's use of the technology -- which introduces efficiencies by obviating the need for home storage and potentially letting Comcast record once but play many times -- but rather in the business model. If Comcast gets permission to do what it's proposing but there's also a way for everyone to get paid fairly, shouldn't that work?

The technology will ultimately make everything available on-demand, all the time, to multiple devices. Residuals will eventually dry up, at least in the form they're practiced today. So, shouldn't the issue be compensation rather than limiting the use of the technology? (And wouldn't some say the market would solve this, because folks won't make the content Comcast needs unless they get compensated?)

I found August's site via a link from Ze Frank, the Web-based artist and thinker and gatherer and whatever else you want to call him behind a jillion viral hits and community experiments on the Web. I'm writing about him today in an essay for the We Media Game Changer awards.