Opinionomics

Opinions Astronomy Aviation Pictures Bits & Pieces Travel Pictures

Note: This article started out as a comment I was going to send to Glenn Reynolds about this item on Instapundit, but turned into something rather longer. Therefore I was thinking mainly of the American media when writing it. Also, I realise that some readers may object to me talking about opinion columns as a product when they're also about the pursuit of truth, serving the public interest, etc. I'm not denying that these aspects exist and are highly important, but the commercial aspects have to be considered as well because newspapers need to make a profit to survive. The purpose of this essay is to consider how the Internet has changed the economics of the newspaper opinion column. Newspapers act as distributors, buying opinion from a small pool of producers – such as journalists, politicians and media-friendly academics - and selling it on to a large number of consumers. At one time they were the only distribution channel for immediate commentary on current events, which sharply limited the number of opinion producers that the market could support. There were only a limited number of column inches to fill each day, and opinion producers could only sell to newspapers with which they were ideologically compatible. Radio and television introduced more competition into the opinion market but did not fundamentally alter its structure. They were simply new distributors using the same model, and many of the same suppliers. However, the Internet attacks this business model from both ends. Opinion consumers can obtain a vast range of informed commentary on every issue from just about every perspective for free. With a certain amount of effort they can build their own custom opinion feeds which are updated more than daily and which may offer longer articles than any newspaper. The consumers have far less need of the distributors, and a much wider range of them to choose from than ever before. Online it's equally easy to buy the Times, the New York Times or the Hindustan Times, regardless of where you live. Opinion producers no longer have to rely on a few all-powerful distributors either. They can deliver their product direct to the public, and have an incentive to do so because most of them are doing it to influence opinion rather than just to make money. The Internet distribution channel has vastly increased the supply of opinion and greatly increased the number of people who can make money from it, e.g. through blogads, reader donations or building a reputation that leads to paid writing work. Of course, this is bad news for journalists whose opinion columns are their main source of income because they are now competing in a global opinion market in which much of the competition is available for free. Any factual or logical errors in their columns are now open to instant public rebuttal – just consider the level of hostile scrutiny that Robert Fisk and Maureen Dowd now face – making it harder for them to maintain their credibility. Both newspapers and columnists are brands, and both are vulnerable to the process described in Communities Dominate Brands whereby communication between consumers controls how the brand is perceived. For opinion brands the key communities will increasingly be in the blogosphere because that is where their products are discussed in detail by the most enthusiastic opinion consumers. It is true that many newspaper readers don't yet read blogs and no doubt quite a few don't use the Internet at all, but the number of people in both those categories will steadily shrink as the Internet becomes ever more mainstream. The kind of people who read current affairs blogs are also the most dedicated readers of opinion columns, and "Rathergate" demonstrates how much of an impact they can already have on a media brand. What's more, there is no longer a clear separation of the opinion consumers from the opinion producers. Some journalists blog, some bloggers contribute articles to newspapers and magazines, and the best of the blogosphere compares favourably to the work of highly paid professionals. So what does this mean for the newspapers? Firstly, it means they are paying too much for opinion. As long as they get most of their opinion pieces from a few highly paid regular columnists they are buying a narrow selection of the available products at a premium price. By soliciting contributions from the many good writers in the blogosphere they could get a much wider range of articles at a much lower rate. The best of those writers would already have an established brand, built up at no cost to the newspaper. Of course, relying on freelancers and amateurs would destroy any lingering image of the national columnist as Olympian authority figure, but the blogosphere is doing that anyway. Secondly, the high supply and low price of opinion means that it should be profitable. A newspaper is really a basket of separate products - news, travel, sports, etc. - which the consumer has traditionally been compelled to buy together due to the practical difficulty of distributing them all separately. If the opinion section doesn't bring in enough readers to be profitable in itself then it is a loss-making product being subsidised by the profitable ones. However, a newspaper's online edition should provide it with detailed information about the readership for each section, article and writer, allowing the performance of each product to be analysed and improved. It also makes it possible to offer highly flexible pricing options, with the reader only subscribing to the sections that he or she normally reads. The rest of the content could be offered on a pay-per-view basis, in which clicking on an interesting headline from a section you don't subscribe to is a form of impulse buy. For example, every time there was a major world event the people who only subscribe to the sports section would click on a few news stories as well. In an eventful year they might spend more through impulse purchases than if they'd subscribed to the whole paper. Thirdly, newspapers need to recognise that online communities offer opportunities as well as threats to their brand. The success of blogs demonstrates that there is a huge demand not only for informed opinion but also for involvement. Visitors will spend more time at a newspaper's site and be more likely to return if it is constructed as a community rather than a portal. For example, it would need to provide discussion forums linked to every article, with responses and updates from the authors. It would need to treat reader feedback as a positive contribution rather than an unwelcome intrusion, even if it was pointing out an embarrassing factual error. With a suitably flexible pricing model, it could turn casual interest into sustained interest leading to a subscription. Greater reader involvement also creates an opportunity to scout for new writing talent, develop contacts in places or sub-cultures where the newspaper's sources are poor, and understand what the paying customer really wants. Many of these people would be, or become, "prosumers" who both produce and consume information products, rather than the passive consumers of the old newspaper model. Fourthly, newspapers need to maintain a clear distinction between reporting and opinion. Factual reporting is the key product in the basket because a story that the reader can't get elsewhere is a unique selling point. It is also the territory that newspapers can most effectively defend against the Internet upstarts as few blogs have the resources to do in-depth investigations, let alone the legal firepower and institutional authority needed to do undercover investigations without getting arrested or seriously hurt. A reputation for scrupulous accuracy is therefore a very powerful brand to have, and it has a consistent appeal to readers of all political persuasions. It is also one that can only be created by the judgement of the consumers, not by any marketing exercise, so it is hard to gain and easy to lose. There will always be a temptation to mix opinion and reporting to make the latter more sensational, and to pander to the perceived prejudices of the readership, but the long-term damage to the brand will far outweigh any short-term gains.

		Last Updated: 1 Oct 07