When Amy sent me this:
"Buffett wants to talk like a philanthropist and an investor at the same time, not understanding that the public good and the bottom line have diverged. A newspaper used to be both a profitable business and a public service, but this was just an accident of the competitive (or rather uncompetitive) media landscape. His commonsense approach to saving papers won’t work, because there is no longer any commonsense business model for a former monopoly that is still seeing its revenues erode faster than its costs."
I remembered reading this a few weeks ago:
"[Newspapers] have been giving away their product at the same time they’re selling it…and that is not a great business model. When they put papers up on the Internet and you get free, you’re competing with yourself. And throughout the industry you’re seeing a reaction to that problem and an answer to it. … You shouldn’t be giving away a product you’re trying to sell."
And then, in part because of brief exchanges with Matt Krupnick and Gary Bogue about their approaches to posting links to their articles and blog posts on Twitter, I remembered Paton:
One of the reasons I am so stern on paywalls and other walled gardens is because I firmly believe that in the future content will go to the audience and not the other way around. Smart, original content, tagged with advertising will gain value by being shared through networks. Shared content equals influence. And influence in the new ecosystem equals engagement. And engagement equals value to those advertisers and others trying to reach that engaged audience.
So, that’s us, then, with our front row seats to two competing visions of a big issue when it comes to the FoN (future of news) right there. No word yet on how many rounds it’ll go, whether it’ll get called by judges’ ruling or by KO.