Alan Rusbridger is a thoughtful man but he's aligned himself with an absolutist point-of-view -- no paywalls.
Along with Jeff Jarvis (whom, unsurprisingly, he's hired as a columnist), Rusbridger is quickly becoming one of the leading opponents of the paid content strategy. However, the entire term "paywall" is a mischaracterization.
There may be some who think they should erect a wall completely around their content. However, in reality an effective paid content strategy is more subtle and nuanced.
It should be entirely possible for a newspaper like the Guardian, filled with fantastic talent, to create successful paid content products alongside the core free product. Considering the Guardian is losing £30 million per year, creating additional revenue streams ought to be a priority. It's certainly better than laying off more journalists and editors.
Paid content products might not close the gap entirely, but they will help. And if the core free product continues to erode, their importance will only increase.
Yet Rusbridger keeps arguing against the straw man of paywalls. There is no nuance to his argument - - it's black and white. Paywalls or free.
For such a thoughtful man, it's a surprisingly simplistic and narrow view. And because he's gone so far out on a limb, it will be that much harder for the Guardian to climb down and try new things.
Rusbridger is certainly a great philosopher regarding the future of journalism. But he is offering no new business ideas, and his current model is broken. So instead of pondering, and arguing unnecessarily against the false construct of "paywalls," he'd be better off getting on with finding some new revenue streams.
Originally posted as a comment by evanrud on ContentNext Network using DISQUS.
Comments