Der Wired-Chefredakteur Chris Anderson erklärt dem Guardian, wie Zeitungen in Zukunft im Netz Geschäfte machen könnten:

“As newspapers debate their future, the argument has been pitched as free versus paid models, but Anderson argues that the real decision is free versus “freemium”. It’s not about whether to charge but choosing carefully which specialised content people will pay for and developing additional premium services.

Of course, many newspapers look to the Wall Street Journal’s model. The Journal offers most of their popular content and many exclusives for free, but they keep their specialised, niche content behind a paywall for subscribers. Referring to his theories behind the long tail, he suggested that newspapers should give away the “head and charge for the tail”. The head of the tail refers to the general interest, high traffic content, while the tail is specialised, special interest content. (…)

Broadly, Anderson rejected the idea that the internet had conditioned everyone to expect content for free. “We’re training them that it’s free to try, but then we must train them to pay for what they value,” Anderson said.

Many content creators believe that quality will win out, but Anderson believes that it is more about relevance than quality. He gives his children two hours of “screen time” a week. Given the choice of watching Star Wars in high-definition or Star Wars stop-action lego animation on YouTube, they always choose YouTube, he said.

That doesn’t mean that it is the end of the blockbuster, but it is the end of the blockbuster monopoly, just as the internet has meant the end of newspapers’ monopolies. “We need mass, and we need niche,” he said.”

Public relation professional Jason Falls hingegen meint: The Economy of Free is Stupid.

“All this Web 2.0 culture shift has created a disturbing attitude in most of us toward advertising as well. We DVR our favorite shows and skip the ads. We get pissed off when we go watch something on Hulu and have to sit through a 15-second car commercial. Hulu’s tag line is, “Watch Your Favorites. Anytime. For Free.”

But Hulu isn’t free. Watching the ad is the price of admission. If you don’t watch it, Hulu will either charge you a subscription fee or not let you watch your shows.

This is why advertising is not dead and why we need to wake up and smell the rich, pure aroma of our Folgers Coffee. The Economy of Free will only last so long.

Better save your money.

Is open source sustainable? Are venture capitalists leading the world in dumb moves right now? Can television shows survive without advertising? If so, will enough people pay to watch what they want to sustain entertainment as we know it?”

Meiner Meinung nach widersprechen die beiden sich nicht einmal so sehr. Beide glauben, unsere Medienlandschaft hat sich verändert und wird sich weiterverändern. Und deswegen müssen neue Modelle her, die es sowohl den Produzenten ermöglichen, rentabel zu arbeiten als auch den Konsumenten, weiterhin ihre Nachrichten, ihre Musik, ihre Fernsehsendungen zu beziehen, ohne sich wie ein Krimineller zu fühlen bzw. dem Irrglauben aufzusitzen, alles sei umsonst zu haben.

(Links via Carta)