If there is any industry barely surviving on life support these days, it's the field of journalism. Forget banking, Wall Street trading, the auto companies. They're considered "too big to fail" and are getting bailed out with trillions in taxpayer money -- money taken from future generations of taxpayers.
But journalism, the most essential business to maintaining a free state, to maintaining balance of power and keeping an eye on government and business dishonesty, is lying in a coma with no health insurance.
Why is this? Many people blame Google for giving us access to free news on the Internet. Some blame Craigslist for taking classified ads from newspapers. These are scapegoats.
The problem is, quite simply, the Internet. Before radio and television, the printed word was the most efficient way of spreading information. These new media cut into newspapers and magazines, but did not kill them. Printed publications managed to give us more depth and thought than the broadcast media. You can read them on your own schedule, and choose the stories you're interested in, rather than waiting for the allotted time slots of broadcast.
The Internet wields a much bigger knife. It can do anything the print media can, and do it better, cheaper and faster. The problem is that print media used to pay a living wage to journalists. The Internet does not.
For that I blame the media companies. Every one of them survives through advertising. The price of subscriptions does not cover the cost of paper and postage. Paid subscriptions are merely a way to prove to advertisers that people actually read the things. Online media can prove readership with tracking software. Paid subscriptions are a joke. I do not believe for a minute that the WSJ online is breaking even.
The media companies should be able to create profitable, ad-supported online publications. Why doesn't this happen? Here are some examples:
FoxNews.com has an article about a concept car designed by some Googlers that I found interesting. The ads with the article feature a Sprint smartphone, how to drop 47 pounds like a mom of three did, how to get whiter teeth like another mom did, how to plump your lips, etc. The site caters to moms. It ignores people who may actually read the articles.
How about a New York Times article on venture capitalists cutting back to basics? Ads for Toyota cars, for the movie Adam, and -- blissfully -- Ads by Google for a private equity database, private equity software, and an investment site.
So why is Google making so much money from advertising?
The only immediate future I can see for online media is a partnership with Google or other clever online advertising companies. Work with them on tools that identify the readers' interests, not only by what they're reading, but by other metrics the advertisers can track.
Yes, some people will be concerned about privacy. It's an overblown issue. Nobody at Google or Microsoft is going to read my personal email or track the sites I go to. Only computers have the bandwidth to collect that data on billions of people. Follow me all you want. Just give me relevance in return.
The Internet is changing the world, and businesses have to adapt. Paper publications will not die, but they are shrinking and will never grow back. Real depth, long articles and books are still better on paper, unless the Kindle takes over (and that's another story.) The future of media is online, and the revenue source is targeted advertising.
Deal with it.
