In his latest post he talks about how to make money from the web. I suppose (and it saddens me a little) that this would be the first and only post many will read. After all thats the big question isn’t it. But there is much more to be had from soaking up all that Paul has to say.
As well as a useful round-up of the key areas to focus on, the post has a number of great sound bites that define the debate.
When talking about creating content people will pay for he says.
Most publishers are not creating commercial value, but social value. This is easy to dismiss, but online, social capital is a very powerful currency. One option (if not too injurious to publishers’ pride) would be reader donations. Readers may be more inclined to support journalism they believe in, such as a particular investigation or issue, rather than the website as a whole.
This is so true but Paul is quick to challenge an idea that this social value is intrinsically linked to local.
Newspapers and broadcasters have been limited by geography, and relevance to readers, so that the ‘why are we spending money on a website that isn’t read by local people?’ culture remains. We need to challenge our ideas of who our readers could be.
**Changing markets **
One commenter has already suggested that, whilst the post is excellent, it’s perhaps a bit of a glum summation. I disagree.
I think it’s makes a simple point very well – there are no simple answers.
Terms like local, community and content all mean different things now. But still a lot of firms are going for a quick fix. Paul makes the point that print has approached the web in the obvious way “colonise the new territory, and export the business model online”.
The recognition that this doesn’t work has meant that many look for the quick fix. Buy in the solution. But that’s like only reading this last post in Paul’s excellent series. Not a good idea