STUFF BY ME WEEK-ENDING 28 MAR 2010

So, the future of the newspaper industry was back in the spotlight this week as The Times announced it will put one of those grim sounding 'paywalls' around its website in June.

This announcement has been a long time coming - Rupert Murdoch let it be known he'd soon start charging for online access to his UK newspapers last year - but it will still be the first major test of the pay-to-view business model for (non-business orientated) online content.

Judging by comments appearing on the Twitter feeds I follow on the morning The Times made its big announcement, there are plenty who expect the broadsheet's new approach to the internet to be one big disaster. Commentators at The Times' print and broadcast rivals, meanwhile, also remained cautious as to whether or not web-users can actually be persuaded to pay for online news, even though their employers - with one notable exception - will be desperately hoping Murdoch's grand plan will work. Mainly so they can steal his business model.

As I have previously blogged, I am more confident than most about the prospect of newspapers making money by charging for access to their websites. Partly because I don't believe advertising revenue alone can ever sustain a major news operation, even if and when print costs are taken out of the equation, meaning all newspapers will eventually move to a subscription system, reducing the amount of free quality content on the net. And partly because good newspapers offer a wholly different service to those other online news providers which are likely to stay free, the services to which, Murdoch's critics argue, Times Online readers will flock once the pay wall goes up.

I rambled on about why advertising revenue alone is unlikely to sustain a newspaper business in a past blog, so let's link to that and assume that point is covered. But what about point two?

There has been a lot of debate this week as to whether or not people can be persuaded to pay for news online when there are so many free information providers on the web, not to mention all the 24/7 news channels on the Freeview, Virgin and Sky networks. But that debate misses an important point, newspapers don't exist to provide news. Certainly not any more.

Ever since teletext-enabled TVs became the norm, the newspaper industry lost ownership of news. Even if people missed the tea time or later news bulletins on BBC1, ITV or Radio 4, the latest headlines and brief summaries of key news stories were just a few clicks away, albeit on the remote rather than the keyboard. Newspapers were full of what was really 'old news' long before the arrival of the internet and News 24. True, the number of free 24/7 news services has boomed in recent times, but newspapers have always been more than just news providers.

When you buy a newspaper you're not buying news - which is available from a plethora of other places, often for free - rather you are buying a specific view of the world.

When you pay a pound (or whatever) to a newsagent, your money is actually giving you a day's access to the brains of the people who work on the paper, who will process everything that has happened in the world in the previous 24 hours, decide what matters most, and then give you a summary of those events and developments, in a familiar style, providing background information where they feel it is needed. Sometimes they will write those news summaries in an entertaining or humorous or sensationalist way, depending on what is appropriate in the circumstances, or popular with their readers.

Most importantly, they will analyse world events and put them into a context more relevant to your life, answering the slightly selfish but always crucial question: what does this mean for me? They will bring their insider contacts and knowledge to the table, and, quite often, add some opinion too. Opinion based on each paper's well-known agenda, which panders to its target readership's general viewpoints, and in doing so will enrage everyone else.

This is what you are paying for when you buy a newspaper, and it's a valuable service which few, if any, of the free news providers or rolling news channels can afford to provide.

Does everyone want these services? Does everyone want to hire the brains of editors and journalists to process the world on their behalf, analyse the world in the context of their own lives, and throw in a bit of comment that will pander to their existing beliefs? No. But then newspapers don't need everyone to hire their services. In the print world, no one title ever aimed to speak to the whole world. All a newspaper needs is enough people interested in their services to make their business viable. Enough people willing to pay their share towards whatever it costs to keep the brains employed, the website operational and shareholders sufficiently rewarded.

Of course the specifics of how a subscription model can and should work - price points, payment systems, the free-to-paid-for ratio - and how this all links into search engines, is all tbc, and I'm not saying Team Murdoch will have all of that right come the launch of the all new Times Online in June. In fact, I'm pretty certain they'll have some of it wrong. The paywalled internet isn't going to be an overnight success, but I don't think that means it can't or won't work long term.

People won't be persuaded to pay for news, but they might pay for everything else that makes up a good newspaper.

--------------------------------------------------

STUFF I DID THIS WEEK
So, it was the big Save 6 protest this weekend. I only intended to stay for a bit of it, but having somehow found myself right at the front, and with several hundred fellow protesters having seemingly arrived just five minutes after I did, I stuck round for the whole 90 minutes. With some great musical turns, some rallying speeches, and a lovely bunch of fellow 6 fans around me, it was hardly a chore, despite God deciding to send a rather heavy, rather cold rain shower in our direction.

The grand finale was a speech from Mr Adam Buxton, who has become something of a poster boy for the Save 6 campaign since he invited the rather dour BBC chief Tommo Thompson out for a fight on 'Channel 4 News'. By this point the rather damp crowd were starting to tire; legs were sore, coats were wet, ears were cold. But the minute Buxton took hold of the megaphone, the protestors were gripped.

Of course he had the most friendly of audiences: half of them Black Squadron members I'm sure, all united by a love of 6, and all grateful Buxton has been so vocal in his support for the station. Yet, by combining his stand-up skills, his ability to use a megaphone (why are so many other speakers at rallies so incapable of using such things?) and all the love in crowd, Buxton had his audience eating out of his hand. Moments like that are electric.

It fascinates me how certain individuals can unite a certain crowd of people in such a way that you can almost feel an energy that is physically holding you together. I remember the first time I saw Jason Byrne perform, at The Stand comedy club in Edinburgh. He had two support acts, the first of which was terrible. The second, by comparison, seemed to be really good. But then Jason walked on stage, and you could feel that energy fill the room before he'd even opened his mouth, making it clear neither of his support acts possessed that magical something that makes you a star performer. If only scientists could figure out what that something is, there would be millions to be made.

Buxton ended his electric contribution to the Save 6 rally with a chant. If you want the long form argument for saving the BBC station check my previous ramblings on the issue here. If you prefer the short hand message, I let Buxton lead the debate: "What do we want? Leave us alone. When do we want it? For a long time".

--------------------------------------------------

STUFF I WROTE THIS WEEK
A round up of some of the news stories and articles I wrote for UnLimited's media in the last seven days...

--

MUSIC BUSINESS STUFF...

Might EMI mortgage its catalogue in the US to pay bankers? [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Sharkey defends three-strikes at SxSW [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Sony appoint new UK sync chief [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Comes With Music heading to India [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Digital Minister stresses appeal element of three-strikes [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

Should bands pay journalists to listen to their music? [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

Universal not considering EMI purchase, Bertelsman might [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Music Matters launches today [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Record sales decline slowed down in 2009 [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Buma/Stemra confirm new CEO [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

It's the logo that really matters [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

PRS restructures, two senior execs leave [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

The music business week in five - Friday 26 Mar 2010 [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

DEB increasingly likely to be passed during wash-up [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

CMU publisher to interview HMV chief at The Great Escape [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

MU, FAC and MMF ally behind Music Supported Here initiative [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

Logan quits as RCA UK MD [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

--

COPYRIGHT STUFF...

Viacom's YouTube action relates only to pre-2008 infringement [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Pirate Party publish manifesto - want ten year copyright terms [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

NLA dispute to rumble on for a year [Creative Business News-Blog 23/03/10]

EU will push to make draft ACTA public [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Lammy speaks on moral rights [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

--

DIGITAL STUFF...

Cash-Gordon site discovers danger of automated Twitter feeds [Creative Business News-Blog 23/03/10]

Google turn off censored Chinese search [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Thumbplay beta Blackberry music service [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Ienner launches content recommendation service [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

--

POP COURTS STUFF...

Gaga responds to lawsuit [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Murray didn't mention propofol to paramedics [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

More Murray speculation [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

Nordic labels announce distribution alliance [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

HMV promote Hirst [CMU Daily 23/03/10]

ACS:Law squabble with file-sharing news site over "wanker" name-calling [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Terra Firma win round one of Citigroup litigation, New York it is [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Sunshine Band founder admits to sex with teenage boys [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Prince named on unpaid taxes list [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Bieber's manager charged over mall fracas [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Axl sued by management [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

Green Day sued over fangs [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

Jackson Senior prepping wrongful death suit [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

--

GENERAL MUSIC STUFF...

Big Boi signs to Def Jam [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Artists pay tribute to Chilton at SxSW [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

AC/DC gig may be cancelled because of bomb concerns [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

New Dreadzone album, tours [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Journey man denies using or celebrating the N-word [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Cowell planning Caribbean wedding [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

Jim Marshall dies [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Matthew Sztumpf dies [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Bono is the worst investor in America [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

--

MEDIA STUFF...

C4 dissed by MPs [CMU Daily 22/03/10]

94 MPs sign save 6 motion [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Lucio gets proper show on Absolute [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

New breakfast show for BBC Derby [CMU Daily 24/03/10]

Your Media goes under [CMU Daily 25/03/10]

Lebedev buys The Independent [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

The Times will charge for its website from June [CMU Daily 26/03/10]

--

PR STUFF...

NLA dispute to rumble on for a year [Creative Business News-Blog 23/03/10]

What will latest MP scandal mean for the lobbying sector? [Creative Business News-Blog 24/03/10]

--

FESTIVAL STUFF...

Liverpool plan Lennon fest [CMU Daily 26/03/10]