ChasNote

Ad Age’s Nat Ives says it’s misguided for newspaper publishers to take heart in the paid-TV model that succeeded for cable and satellite, even when their competition was free:

“Here’s why cable and satellite subscriptions aren’t a good model for newspapers. In the first place, cable and TV offered something better than broadcast TV — much better. Their packages included perfect reception; many more channels, some with no commercials, mostly unavailable any other way; and types of programming you couldn’t get otherwise, i.e., shows with ‘adult’ language and situations. In the second place, cable and satellite were optional products people could buy to enhance their programming.”

Yup. But maybe it’s not over yet. Maybe news publishers will pause their search for a life-saving business model (a search that seems to end, alas, at hoping readers will pay fees for stuff that others offer for free) and instead spend those cycles thinking about better satisfying their readers’ needs. You never know — they might stumble upon a service so wonderful that we’re all willing to pay for it.

Another thought on why we were once OK paying for our newspapers: From the crack editors at ChasNote last week, Paying for Ethereal Pixels of News.