The future for print newspapers is not looking good as the recent demise of the Rocky Mountain News reminds us. While no one wants journalism to disappear, it is clear that ink squirted on wood pulp has run its course and we need to look at viable alternatives. The problem is, the obvious alternatives are not looking very viable. Sure, we can report and publish the news online--but so far subscription and advertising revenue streams have been unable to support these efforts.
So what are the options. Here are a few ideas that I've heard recently. 1) Switch from commercial to non-profit and ask wealthy patrons to endow the organization to cover operating expenses. Universities use this model and many believe that there are well-to-do benefactors who would hate to see newspapers disappear. 2) Increase subscription prices and sell papers/newsletters to those who value news and can afford to pay a premium price. 3) Charge a small fee per news story (similar to an iTunes model) for content. Even music fans are starting to "pony up" even though free downloads are often just a few clicks away. 4) Allow readers to "contribute" a small fee to websites where they find content of value. This approach is being promoted by companies like Kachingle, a micro-payment service that hopes that people will voluntarily give if given the opportunity. 5) Get in line for a government bailout. Some would argue that newspaper are too important to let them fail.
It's clear that some of these alternatives have more promise than others. It's also likely that the final solution may be some combination of the above, or something else entirely. There are some journalists whose jobs depend on figuring it out, and the sooner the better. To find out what they're up to, check out the I Want My Rocky website, or the San Franciso Post Chronicle wiki. At the Rocky website journalists who are out of work are continuing to publish stories as they try to figure out their future. At the SFC wiki, journalists who may soon be out of a job are trying to be proactive as they face the future. In both cases there is much at stake and little time to waste.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
Interactive Media and the Stock Market's Volatility
It's been my opinion for a while that online trading and the increase in information available to stock traders has contributed to an increasingly volatile stock market.
Think about it for a second, before the rise in online trading, selling off your stocks required a call to your broker. Theoretically, your broker was someone who you trusted to know what he/she was doing when it came to buying and selling your stocks. More importantly, your broker (other than a brokerage fee) wasn't financially involved in the sale or purchase of your stocks.
There's a good chance that if you'd called your broker to sell your stocks during a downturn in the market, he'd tell you that now was not the time to sell off the stocks and lock in your losses, now was the time to buy more for the inevitable upswing in the market that follows any sell-off.
Unfortunately, for a large number of Americans, the broker is a thing of the past. There's very little standing in your way when you log into your E-Trade or ScottTrade account to sell off that stock that's tanking... meaning there's no one there to talk some sense into you before you commit one of the biggest rookie mistakes of stock trading (selling near the bottom).
In addition, we're bombarded (especially lately) with information about how bad the economy is doing right now. The economy is really a trust-based system that thrives when consumers have confidence in it and doesn't when they don't. Sure, there are some issues with the fundamentals of our credit markets, but they pale in comparison to the mental specter of recession and how we react to it.
Just like shark attacks, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and other over-hyped crises, the mass media is doing a bang up job of making sure everyone in the U.S. is scared. After all, if people are scared they'll buy more newspapers and watch more TV to monitor the situation. In the current media environment, sensationalism sells.
Combine these two things and you have a perfect storm for market volatility. When you log into your online brokerage account, you're probably presented with the performance of the shares you own as well as news items relating to them. As you read about how badly IBM is doing, it's all too easy to click a few buttons and sell off your IBM stock. While it's a boon to usability and it makes the online trading companies money (they make money on every trade whether you do or not), is it the best thing for our stock market?
Think about it for a second, before the rise in online trading, selling off your stocks required a call to your broker. Theoretically, your broker was someone who you trusted to know what he/she was doing when it came to buying and selling your stocks. More importantly, your broker (other than a brokerage fee) wasn't financially involved in the sale or purchase of your stocks.
There's a good chance that if you'd called your broker to sell your stocks during a downturn in the market, he'd tell you that now was not the time to sell off the stocks and lock in your losses, now was the time to buy more for the inevitable upswing in the market that follows any sell-off.
Unfortunately, for a large number of Americans, the broker is a thing of the past. There's very little standing in your way when you log into your E-Trade or ScottTrade account to sell off that stock that's tanking... meaning there's no one there to talk some sense into you before you commit one of the biggest rookie mistakes of stock trading (selling near the bottom).
In addition, we're bombarded (especially lately) with information about how bad the economy is doing right now. The economy is really a trust-based system that thrives when consumers have confidence in it and doesn't when they don't. Sure, there are some issues with the fundamentals of our credit markets, but they pale in comparison to the mental specter of recession and how we react to it.
Just like shark attacks, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and other over-hyped crises, the mass media is doing a bang up job of making sure everyone in the U.S. is scared. After all, if people are scared they'll buy more newspapers and watch more TV to monitor the situation. In the current media environment, sensationalism sells.
Combine these two things and you have a perfect storm for market volatility. When you log into your online brokerage account, you're probably presented with the performance of the shares you own as well as news items relating to them. As you read about how badly IBM is doing, it's all too easy to click a few buttons and sell off your IBM stock. While it's a boon to usability and it makes the online trading companies money (they make money on every trade whether you do or not), is it the best thing for our stock market?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
