Steve Pearlstein Knows What Everyone Wants
April 30th, 2008 | by Brad King |
Image via Wikipedia
Pulitzer Prize winning business writer Steve Pearlstein gave a talk at the Society of American Business Editors and Writers conference this week. Unbeknownst to me, the solution to the news industry’s failings have already been figured out.
You can read the full story here, but check out this excerpt:
“And what they want and need is a single source every day, basic comprehensive file of news and analysis from a credible source in convenient form.”
In other words, everyone wants one place where they can get all their news and information. From a defined credible source. Like an aggregator of information, with unbiased data delivered in a convenient way.
Pearlstein wants my RSS Reader (which doesn’t include the Washington Post, where he works).
But the real Pearl of wisdom come with his analysis of online content.
Pearlstein also predicted that many newspapers will start charging for online content, and to direct readers to Web sites of other media organizations isn’t the answer.
There’s no mention if he discussed the failed pay-per-read models, but if he believes the future of online news is paid sites, I’d suggest he focus more on business reporting (where he’s an expert) and less on online business prognostication (where he’s not).
The assumption — implicit as it is - is that banners and such are the business models of the future, which clearly haven’t generated the revenues they need across newspaper sites.
It’s a flawed assumption as my colleagues say. The Major Premise isn’t logical.
There are scores of ways to make money online which have nothing to do with charging people to read. If you do that, if you create a walled garden, you have effectively turned yourself into a Cyber-Island in cyberspace, which isn’t a great place to be.
Pearlstein continues to insist — according to this piece — that packaging stories is the future of news. That packaging national writers — an ever-shrinking pool of experts — into the business pages of American newspapers is the answer.
Read us. Listen to us.
This gets to the heart of our discussions on the listserv (soon to be Ning as well) about interactivity and social media. The flaw in Pearlstein’s logic is the assumption that technology doesn’t change the playing field.
In fact, technology is a whole new field with scads of opportunities to do things nobody can do in print. You don’t build the same product online. You build a new product, like an extension on your house.
Then you have a much bigger product.
