Prophesying is easy.
“I confidently predict that, within 12 months, almost all news organizations will be charging for [online] content,” said Brendan Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, echoing Rupert Murdoch, who said much the same thing a few weeks ago.
Yes, Mr Barber, but can you be a touch more specific?
The FT oracle replies: “How these payment models work and how much revenue they can generate is still up in the air.”
And that’s the difficulty. The entire newspaper and magazine industry feels it is looking into a financial pit as advertising flakes away, chunks of it never to return. Somehow the zillions plowed into news Web sites have to start paying off sometime soon. There has to be light at the end of a very long, dark tunnel that threatens all seriously resourced news operations.
Yet here’s the ultimate rub.
“The question for consumers is the psychological barrier of paying now when you were getting it free before — and you’re bound to lose some readers as a result,” said Ken Doctor, a top Californian analyst.
The FT, which has always kept much of its specialized content behind paid firewalls, does not have that problem. Nor does Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. Financial journalism online has an instant value that investors and punters are well prepared to pay for.
Five years or so ago, general interest papers that had hoped to make cash from digital charges decided that free content supported by loads of paid advertising was the way forward. So the charging stopped and gathering readers — or unique users — took over. The New York Times scrapped Times Select — with its 200,000 subscribers at US$50 a year — and let buoyantly increasing Web ads take the strain. But that has turned into a disaster as ad sales on its various sites have fall between 3.5 percent and 8 percent so far this year. No miracle growth — and no opportunity to push rates charged beyond 12 percent or 15 percent of their print equivalent. Advertising alone won’t hack it. Even Google’s own market rate is down 13 percent. So what on earth will?
The New York Times, because it has US$1.1 billion in debts to pay off, is being rather more heart-on-sleeve about next steps. It has asked a research sample of subscribers whether they would pay US$5 a month for access to NYtimes.com (and if not, whether US$2.50 a month sounds a better bet).
Scott Heekin-Canedy, its group general manager, reckons micropayments — the accumulation of tiny sums for time spent online — will not work.
He said he was looking at the metered model that the FT uses or a “membership model” that charges a monthly fee and offers “club privileges” — plus bargain opportunities to buy on top.
Well, we’ll see as soon as the newly thin New York Times board sings. But don’t expect one great answer to a myriad of different dilemmas. The Times, which invests so much in content, may be able to charge successfully for some or all of it. But its unique user count is bound to decline, taking online advertising down with it. If there was a widespread, concerted change, then perhaps it could be contrived without too much loss. But current monopoly law makes such an organized commercial shift impossible.
In the UK, where the giant hulk of the BBC’s £153 million (US$252 million) a year “free” Web site is the elephant in the room, the situation is even more complex.
The London Daily Mail and the tabloid Sun newspapers, each boasting 20 million unique users or more, have moved their sites away from their print versions, concentrating on celebrity gossip and boobs rather than news. Can they charge when PerezHilton.com or TMZ.com stay free?
The London Daily Telegraph, with a huge print subscription base, has one set of possibilities. The Daily Express, with no subscriptions and not much of a Web site, has none — except price-cutting and seeing its print possibilities grow. The Guardian, leading the unique user pack, has advertising possibilities to lose if its user count slides too much in a charging switch — but jam the day after tomorrow does not help if the teacake is burning today.
Kindle, the much-touted screen reading device, may help a bit: but it’s not proven. Cellphones could offer tempting returns, but these are early days. Video is a prime development area, except that the BBC’s iPlayer and Project Canvass extensions prospectively offer it in better quality — and free. Too much of the Internet is free. So, in sum, there is only one prophecy worth a moment’s hushed silence: Something will have to be done. But heaven knows what.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS