0

By

That’s the headline of Steve Outing’s latest column in Editor and Publisher–and also one of the issues that TeleRead could address.

Via a mix of private philanthropy and long-range public funding, a TeleRead-style national digital library system could pay for old articles in way that respected freedom of the press. We’re not talking necessarily about a Pentagon-sized budget here. If nothing else, keep in mind that newspapers are not making that much from accesses to old articles. And yet, from a civic perspective, what could be more important? Some of the most enthusiastic users of archives are local citizens researching issues relating to the environment, zoning, courts or schools. This is much of what the First Amendment is all about, the use of media as empowerment tools for individuals in a democracy. Unfortunately, however, even at just $3 a pop, articles are not always affordable for massive research by ordinary citizens, as opposed to special interest groups.

Think of another benefit, too, from a TeleRead approach. If access is free or truly low cost, then newspaper research could be a core part of civics classes. Imagine the marketing benefits to the news organizations. And in case anyone is curious, no, I don’t think that the library or school versions of newspapers should be stripped of advertising. It’s there in the paper versions, after all.

But what to do about subscription fees for current news? TeleRead would not pay. Still, a well-organized national digital library system would help. It would be a way for people to buy–yes, by themselves, not through TeleRead–current access to a number of newspapers at once. In the past Outing has written perceptively about the payment-related issues, and TeleRead might be one way to bring down the collection costs and avoid having one company dominate as a toll collector.

Related issues still arise. TeleRead is hardly going to save the newspaper business. It just will have to save itself. One way could be truly microscopic coverage of neighborhoods, perhaps through little email newsletters and wide use of paid stringers. More mulitmedia also would help, as would new services such as branded databases to help local businesses market themselves (services that perhaps could be perks for advertisers and help justify rates). And on the savings side, here is some outrageous heresy in the wake of the dotcom crashes: what about junking the big presses? We’re talking long term of course. But as e-readers grow cheaper and simpler to use, especially with wireless and e-ink, will the younger generation really care about pulped wood as much as their elders? I myself am a babyboomer and yet don’t subscribe to the paper New York Times. I read it via my cable modem. When decent portable and wireless displays arrive, I may also give up my subscription to the Washington Post.

Bottom line? If the Post and the rest want to survive, they should forget about making massive sums through archives and instead think of new ways of growing revenue and reducing costs.

Meanwhile let’s keep the archives-related revenue in perspective. “One last thing to consider,” Outing correctly observes, “is just how much a newspaper can make from a paid-archives strategy. Most newspaper companies are hesitant to share archive revenue figures–but even among large papers, it’s very rare to go above $50,000 a year.” While this figure could go up as more people depend on research online, newspapers just should not look to archives for big money–and TeleRead could be another income source.

Like book and magazine publishers, the newspaper business must stop dreading the library model and understand that the press actually could fare better under it.

Followup post

 
0