There Are Lots Of Ways To Fund Journalism

from the if-you-look-around dept

As various folks in the news business (and outside of it) continue to fret about how it could be possible to ever fund the production of news, some are taking more positive looks at the space. Jay Rosen has listed out 18 different sources of subsidies for funding journalism (or journalism-like) work. Some of them are better than others, but it's a useful list to get you a thinking. Full disclosure: a part of our own business model is on the list. Along those lines, since people have been saying nice stuff about our business model, Jesse Hirsh has a way-too-nice writeup about our CwF+RtB experiment, which I still think is a bit short of a full business model, but is getting closer. Based on our experiences with it, we're getting more and more ideas on how to fund not just journalism, but all sorts of content creation.

And, really, that's the idea. There are lots of different ideas and experiments going on -- and many of them are showing early signs of success, and I'm sure more will come along at a later date that are even more successful. Really, the only ones complaining and demanding changes to the law are those who represent the old way of doing things, and don't want to change. They talk up all sorts of horror stories and moral panics about how "journalism" or "music" or "movies" are going to go away -- despite the fact that we actually have more of all three of those things happening today than at any time in history. Based on that faulty reasoning, they demand special protection not for "journalism" "music" or "movies" but for the old business models and old institutions that produced all three.

Eventually, as these new business models and new institutions work themselves out, it'll suddenly seem "obvious" what the right answers were, and people will forget the hundreds if not thousands of different experiments -- both good and bad -- that went into developing the new model. It's a time of upheaval, for sure, but there's no indication that there's any real risk to the production of content. Just a few businesses that got big and don't want to change with the times.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Service Helps Musicians Pre-Fund Releases From Fans

from the useful-tool dept

Andrew Moffat from the site Musicslu writes in to let us know about its service, which is effectively a tool to let musicians get fans to "pre-fund" their releases. We've talked about such models in the past -- and it's similar to what Jill Sobule did last year. Other musicians have done it as well, but Musicslu tries to make it easier for artists. Basically, the band announces how much it needs to raise to release its album, and fans pledge money. No one actually pays until the full pledge number is hit -- and then once it's hit, the music is released for everyone totally free (covered by a Creative Commons license that encourages sharing). They've put up a YouTube video explaining how it works:

Again, this isn't an entirely new idea, but it's nice to see a tool that makes it easier for artists who don't want to go through the hassle of setting it all up themselves. I'm sure some folks will complain that this sort of model only encourages "free loaders," but that ignores the reality. The band gets to set exactly how much it needs to make from the album, and be guaranteed that amount. If there's freeloaders after that fact, so what? If the band really builds up a huge following, then the next time around it can set a higher price. Besides, the band can continue to make money by selling other scarcities.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Journalism Isn't Dead: More Journalism Projects Getting Funded

from the ain't-dead-yet dept

Last week, in yet another post about old school journalists complaining about the supposed "death" of journalism, someone complained in the comments, saying that the "utter lack of interest" from venture capitalists concerning journalism startups should disprove that there are others out there who can build such a business. That seems like a ridiculous criteria (venture capital interest is hardly a barometer of what works and what doesn't). But, even if we assume that you need to see VC interest, well, then that commenter is wrong also. Someone anonymous pointed us to the recent launch of Patch, a company that is hiring full-time journalists and building hyperlocal community sites and is funded by Polar Capital. And that's hardly the only one. In the last month alone I've had conversations with three different VCs looking at journalism startups and exploring whether their models made sense. Once again, we're seeing that if there's demand for a product (journalism), there will be businesses that will figure out ways to supply it. Not all will succeed. In fact, many will fail. But from that we'll certainly come up with models that work.

1 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EMI Might Not Like The RIAA Very Much

from the distancing-yourself dept

Kevin Stapp writes in to point to the rumor making the rounds that EMI is considering scaling back how much it supports the RIAA and IFPI financially. While this is positioned mainly as a cost-savings move, it could have much larger ramifications. EMI, of course, has actually been shifting slowly away from some of the more troubling positions of the RIAA. It was the first major label to sell DRM-free tracks on iTunes. More importantly, it was recently taken private by a private equity firm, whose bosses don't seem beholden to the old way of doing business, and are willing to rethink the business. For example, when Radiohead began its experiment with "name your own pricing," the CEO of that private equity firm used it as a call to action for the company to start thinking creatively about new ways to distribute music -- rather than trying to diminish its importance as the other record labels did.

If EMI lowers its funding of the RIAA and the IFPI it's basically an (all too late) admission, that the strategies of those two organizations are not helping EMI achieve its long term goals. This shouldn't be surprising, as it's been obvious for nearly a decade now that the RIAA's focus was solely on short-term goals at the expense of any long-term vision. Many people have pointed this out over the years, and people would respond that the RIAA was simply doing what the labels wanted it to do (even if those actions, like pissing off a huge number of fans) was incredibly damaging to the labels' own long-term prospects. EMI pulling back funding shows that even it no longer thinks the RIAA's actions are in its best interests.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..