The reason why smart media people like Carr and Isaacson want a killer device for newspapers is that they hope that hardware might finally restore the monopoly power newspapers held over information for so long. Offering readers a gadget with the sex appeal of an iPod could once again make consumers see the unique value in the newspaper „experience“ that can’t be replicated elsewhere. Build it and they will come, the thinking goes.
Unfortunately, with the Internet, newspaper Web sites, no matter how sophisticated, are forced to compete with every other source of news. The fundamental question, then, comes down to why consumers would pay hundreds of dollars upfront and then a subscription fee or micropayment on top of that to access newspapers‘ content when so much news is still available for free. To replicate the old print model in which newspapers retained pricing power and content remained scarce, all major news organizations would have to adopt the micropayment model en masse. And that would spark cries of collusion. It’s not the lack of a cool device that’s killing the newspaper industry‚Äîit’s that competition and consumer tastes have undermined their competitive position. No device or download service will change that.
Unter dem Titel The Big Money erteilt Gabriel Sherman den Vorschlägen Walter Isaacson eine Absage. Micropayment wie bei der Musik funktioniert für Nachrichten nicht, sagt er:
Put simply, journalism is not music.
Auch wenn der Vergleich zur Musikindustrie doch beim Mixtape-Journalismus gut funktioniert hat.
