Rapper faces year in jail
Walter Isaacson Doesn't Pay for Content -- Why Should You?
There were plenty among the 400-plus media industry executives gathered at the Magazine Innovation Summit in New York on Tuesday echoing a suddenly popular battle cry: it’s time for consumers to pay for the content magazines put online.
But do those same executives pay themselves?
“I read magazine content online,” said Walter Isaacson, former editor of Time magazine and chief executive officer of the Aspen Institute. “I don’t feel the need to subscribe to them.”
Let’s rephrase that: Time magazine’s former editor does not “feel the need to subscribe” to magazines when he can get their content online for free.
When asked if magazines should try a model similar to his, Reed Hastings, the founder of Netflix, said, “It’s certainly worth a shot.”
But does Hastings subscribe to magazines? “No, I read them online,” he said. “I’m your worst fear. I love the content, but I don’t pay for it.” (This from a guy who pays the postal service $600 million a year to ship DVDs to his customers.)
“There’s a growing recognition that free is not the answer,” said Ken Auletta, the New Yorker writer. “But there are lots of menaces that may not make [paid content] work.”
Auletta, author of “Googled: The End of the World as We Know It,” was interviewed about his new book by New York Times media columnist David Carr, who paused briefly to praise the food on Google’s Northern California campus. “I walked out of there with my pockets full,” Carr said. “It’s free, why wouldn’t you take it?”
If magazine executives are feeling a bit schizophrenic these days, this is why.
OK, so they don't pay now. But would they? Ever?
“People will pay for differentiated content,” Hastings said, not content that’s been “commoditized” to death.
“In the end you have to have guts to say I’m not going to give content away for free,” said John Squires, Time Inc.’s executive vice president.
Other sessions during the summit’s first day were devoted to the technology that is rapidly allowing consumers to access content – both free and paid – wherever they want.
“The world is definitely going mobile,” said Mary Lou Jepsen, CEO of Pixel Qi and co-founder of the One Laptop Per Child project. “Flexible screens will replace laptops,” probably sooner than later.
“We all know it’s coming,” added Josh Quittner, former editor of Business 2.0 and an editor-at-large at Time magazine. “When Apple’s [tablet] device is announced, there will be a mass ascension and everyone will go to media heaven.”
Then, said Skip Zimbalist, former CEO of Times Mirror and current chief executive of Active Interest Media, “it won’t be a magazine, it will be something else. I don’t care if it lives on in print.”
MORE:
Netflix Founder to Magazine Publishers: 'I'm Your Worst Fear'
Condé Nast Group Prez: 'We Could Sell the Movie Rights to the McKinsey Study'



Comments
William Kessel Says
Allan, 2010? Dream on, bud, dream on...
richard hart Says
I am amazed that in all these discussions about how to pay for the journalism (good and bad) that a century of monopoly and near-monopoly newspapers created (thanks to a unique, lucky and dying set of printing-advertising-transportation circumstances), no one has pointed out one key fact: I pay about $100 a year for a newspaper subscription, and around $400 a year for the privilege of reading a few newspapers and blogs for free on the Internets. While not monopolies, the same cost factors apply to magazines. It is a rule of thumb in the publishing business that the cost of a subscription is only about enough to pay for printing and distribution. On the Web, those costs are vastly reduced--but distribution is the only thing we're paying for, and we're paying more, at that. As a result, the ISPs are able to make huge amounts of money on the backs of free content. Why shouldn't they be paying the content providers who make their services so attractive? Given the advanced (and advancing) state of data collected about Web users, how hard would it be to either set a fixed rate or calculate a rate for them to pay back to content providers (even bloggers!) based on usage to pay for maintaining the Baghdad bureau or writing a 4,000-word magazine story or sending someone to a City Council meeting? (I remember reading a Brookings posting suggesting this a while back, but now can't find it.) Maybe it raises ISP costs by $5 a month. Or $10. Maybe nothing. I don't know. But I'm baffled why micropayments and paid firewalls, not payments from ISPs to content providers, have become the central part of the discussion. How have the giant telecoms managed to keep themselves out of this conversation? Maybe there's an obvious reason this isn't being considered, but I can't think of it.
Tiny Montgomery Says
Hmm. I didn't pay for this story, and I doubt I'll pay for "established" magazine content either. Good luck with that, media industry.
Allan Hoving Says
2010 will be the year of Paid Content. it's not a question of "if" but "how." The answer is by offering readers a choice of "many ways to pay." See the demo at http://www.PayCheckr.com