Five Things Old Media Still Don’t Get About The Web
Today the internet seems to have changed the information aspect, it just actually smashed the monopoly of the old media. Newspapers, television networks, and magazines once had the whole say in the news cycle. A viral tweet, a blog post, or a YouTube video can create public opinion faster than any front-page headline today. Yet, even after being around for more than a couple of decades, most of the traditional media still do not get the basic essence of the web.
They still hold on to old business models, underestimate the power of algorithms, and completely fail to grasp that audiences today require interactive engagement with the content and not just passive consumption. The web is a fast-moving, vibrant flux, whereas here credibility is built through engagement and interaction rather than just by authority. Those refusing to either change or adapt will be left behind in the dust of obsolescence.
Far removed are the old dictatorial paramount of media still out of touch with five things concerning the web.
1. People Never Wanted to Pay for the News
Traditional media has long assumed that because people once paid for newspapers, they would be willing to pay for digital news. But the reality is, that people weren’t paying for the news itself, news was just one part of a larger package. Newspapers bundled news with classifieds, weather updates, stock prices, and entertainment sections, all of which are now available online for free and in real-time. This makes selling digital news subscriptions a tough challenge.
Readers today have countless free options for news. Social media, blogs, and independent news sites provide instant updates, often faster than traditional outlets. The old model of paying for access to journalism simply does not align with modern consumer expectations. Unless media companies offer something significantly different and more valuable, people won’t pay.
- People Pay Only for Something Special: If a news site offers unique, high-quality content, some people might pay, but it has to be worth it.
- People Want Free News: If the same news is available for free elsewhere, no one wants to pay for it.
- Old Newspapers Had More Than Just News: People bought newspapers for job ads, classifieds, and entertainment, not just news.
- Social Media is Faster: Platforms like Twitter and Facebook break news instantly, often before big news websites.
- Trust Issues with Big Media: Many people think traditional news is biased, so they look for independent sources.
2. Paywalls Break the Web and Annoy Your Customers
Paywalls create a frustrating experience for readers. Imagine coming across an interesting article, clicking on the link, and immediately being blocked by a paywall demanding a subscription. Most people will simply close the tab and move on.
The web thrives on openness and sharing, but paywalls restrict access and limit the spread of information. Instead of encouraging engagement, they push readers toward free alternatives. While some premium outlets can sustain a paywall because they provide unique and valuable content, the vast majority of news sites struggle because their audience isn’t willing to pay when free sources are just a click away.
- Only Exclusive Content Can Justify Paywalls: Sites with deep investigative journalism or unique insights might succeed, but basic news won’t.
- Readers Hate Paywalls: Most people won’t subscribe just to read one article, they’ll leave and find free news elsewhere.
- The Web is Built for Sharing: Paywalls block content from spreading, making articles less influential and reducing traffic.
- Free Alternatives Win Every Time: When so much news is available for free, most people won’t pay unless the content is truly exceptional.
- Paywalls Kill Engagement: Instead of building loyal readers, they push visitors away before they even start reading.
3. The Web Needs New Solutions, Not Digital Replicas of Print
Many media companies assume that converting print articles into digital formats will attract paying subscribers. But the internet demands more than just text, it thrives on interactivity, multimedia, and innovation.
A digital newspaper that merely mimics the print experience offers no additional value. Readers expect engaging visuals, interactive elements, and real-time updates. Successful digital media outlets embrace video content, podcasts, and immersive storytelling instead of relying on static articles.
- Innovation Drives Success: The best digital platforms experiment with storytelling, AI-driven recommendations, and interactive infographics to keep audiences hooked.
- Static Text is Boring: Readers expect interactive content, not just scanned newspaper pages on a screen.
- Multimedia Wins Attention: Videos, podcasts, and animations engage users far more than plain text.
- Real-Time Updates Matter: Unlike print, digital news must evolve constantly to stay relevant.
- Readers Want a Two-Way Conversation: Comment sections, polls, and live discussions create engagement, not just passive reading.
4. People Pirate Because They Get a Better Experience
Piracy isn’t just about getting content for free, it’s about convenience. When legal options come with restrictions like DRM limitations, region locks, and excessive advertisements, piracy becomes the more attractive alternative.
The best way to combat piracy isn’t through lawsuits or crackdowns, it’s by offering a better user experience. Streaming services like Netflix and Spotify have shown that people are willing to pay for content when it is convenient, affordable, and high-quality. Instead of making access difficult, media companies should focus on making their content more appealing than the pirated version.
- Convenience Always Wins: When platforms make content easy to access at a fair price, piracy naturally declines.
- Piracy is Faster: No forced ads, no region locks, just instant access.
- No DRM Hassles: Pirated content doesn’t come with restrictions that limit how and where users can watch.
- Better Accessibility: Legal platforms sometimes remove content, but pirated versions stay available indefinitely.
- High Prices Push Users Away: Many people pirate simply because legal alternatives are too expensive.
5. Filesharing and Piracy Do Not Always Represent Lost Sales
Media companies often claim that piracy causes massive revenue losses. However, not every person who pirates content would have paid for it otherwise. Many people download content they were never planning to buy in the first place, meaning those aren’t truly lost sales.
In some cases, piracy even helps media companies by increasing exposure. Shows like Game of Thrones gained massive popularity by being widely pirated, ultimately benefiting HBO in terms of brand recognition and merchandise sales. Instead of focusing solely on preventing piracy, media companies should look for ways to convert casual viewers into paying customers.
- People Pay When It’s Easy & Affordable: Many former pirates now subscribe to platforms like Netflix, proving that convenience wins over restriction.
- Not Every Pirate is a Lost Customer: Many people who pirate wouldn’t have paid for the content anyway, so there’s no real revenue loss.
- Free Publicity Can Drive Sales: Pirated content often increases awareness, leading to more paying customers in the long run.
- Merchandise & Spin-offs Make Money: Shows and movies gain loyal fans through piracy, who then buy official merchandise, tickets, and subscriptions.
- Piracy Shows Demand: High piracy rates indicate strong interest, which media companies can capitalize on by improving accessibility.
Also Read: The Currency of The Internet Is Personal Data
The Web Demands a New Approach
The internet isn’t just another distribution channel, it has fundamentally changed how people consume information. Old media companies that cling to outdated models will continue to struggle, while those that embrace new digital strategies will thrive.
Successful media businesses adapt to online habits. They prioritize accessibility, shareability, and user engagement over rigid paywalls and traditional publishing formats. Instead of forcing outdated business models onto digital audiences, they evolve to meet modern expectations
Adapt or Get Left BehindThe media industry faces a choice: continue fighting against the way the internet works or embrace change. Those who resist digital transformation will fade into irrelevance, while those who innovate will define the future of news and content distribution.
The question is, who will adapt before it’s too late?
AI: The Game Changer in Digital Media
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the media landscape. It’s not just about automation, it’s about personalization, efficiency, and smarter content distribution. AI helps media companies:
- Deliver Personalized Content: AI-powered algorithms curate news feeds, recommend articles, and tailor content to individual interests, keeping audiences engaged.
- Enhance User Experience: Chatbots, AI-generated summaries, and interactive tools make consuming information faster and more intuitive.
- Optimize Ad Revenue: AI-driven analytics help media companies understand reader behavior, allowing them to target ads more effectively and increase revenue.
- Detects Trends in Real Time: AI scans social media, forums, and search trends to predict viral topics before they even break into mainstream news.
- Automate Content Creation: AI can assist in generating news reports, writing summaries, and even producing video content, speeding up production without compromising quality.
Resources:
- https://www.bspcn.com/2010/06/11/5-things-old-media-still-doesnt-get-about-the-web/
- https://agital.com/blog/what-is-traditional-media/
- https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-that-people-did-before-the-Internet-that-they-no-long
Also Read: 5 Reasons That Social Media May Never Die
The writer here states much of what is obvious.
In his 1 of 5, where claims people never wanted to pay for the news, that is like saying people never wanted to pay for anything, ever, if they didn’t have to. Well, duh. We don’t want to pay taxes either, but we still want the services that taxes pay for, don’t we? I am always flabbergasted by the is whole current cultural concept of wanting everything for free.
2 of 5
He states “A columnist for a newspaper writes a brilliant article explaining, oh I dunno, a forthcoming economic crisis, or an expose of the BP oil spill.” But then goes on to ignore the basic fact that this columnist does not do what he or she does for free. Why do we expect it to be for free? The cover story of the NYT today (6/13/10) is a brilliant story about marines rescuing their injured or killed comrades in helicopters in Afghanistan. There are some stunning photographs along with it. Clearly the writer and the photographer were there, in the heat of the battle, bullets whizzing past…for free?! No, they expect to be paid to bring me that bit of reality to my kitchen table here in safe and boring Tucson. Could a blogger writing for free do this? Hell no. He or she couldn’t get the credentials to be there in the first place, and second, they are not journalists.
3 of 5
He writes: “This is what old media companies don’t seem to get: if you want people to pay for content, you have to offer something new and compelling.” This is complete horse***t. See above. Compelling is a mild understatement in the case of the article I mention. What this author is really saying is “we want a new model for media that brings me everything I could ever want to read for free. And, it’s the media companies’ fault for not being able to figure this out in the face of “the fundamental nature of the web” (read: free free free).
4 of 5
Another complete horse***t argument. His argument basically consists of stealing is okay because the version I can steal is of better quality than the one I can buy. He then says “protecting content instead of making it compelling” is why there is theft of intellectual property. That argument alone fails on the basic premise that if it isn’t compelling, then why are you stealing it, regardless of it’s quality? But then he reminds us again “to give the people what they want”: which is compelling content for free.
5 of 5
He states: “what’s clear is that all the money poured into lawsuits trying to stamp out piracy might be better spent finding ways to market and distribute content.” Basically, he is saying “don’t try to protect the content you created at a cost of millions of dollars when you know damn well we will find a way to just take it from you anyway. Figure out a way to make me want to pay for it, or better yet, someone else via advertising, so I can still have it for free. Because in reality, this is the only option I am willing to accept.”
Example of why his argument fails: If I go out and spend money to create a photograph—airfare, hotel, camera gear, lighting, prop rental, location fees, insurance, police, talent fees, time— and then someone sees fit to use that image without compensating me to further something they have an interest in, then the argument that it was on the web and should therefore be free will not hold up so well when I sue the f*** out of them for copyright infringement.
That fact that media is ubiquitous does not render it valueless. This is the argument that this writer, and so many others like him, continue to use. Cultural production is not by nature like oxygen for all to use once it is released into the societal ether. Kembrew McLoud wrote an entire book stating just the same and while he is a respected professor from U of Iowa, the argument still fails in my eyes. Never mind the devastation it creates to the quality of a democracy dependent of quality journalism which costs money to create and should be compensated for to continue the cycle.
You see my problem with this guy’s article is that he has no acknowledgment that compelling content costs money to create and by free market principles, the creator has a right to protect and market that content, just as they would the creation of any other product. The moment you strip away the revenue streams, the profit motive and any ability to recoup the costs of putting reporters and photographers in helicopters in battles in foreign wars, you stop being able to get that kind of compelling content.
I think I’ll keep my subscription to the NYT in tact for the time being.
I think the point is not that everyone wants everything for free, but that if I am going to pay for something, it should have more “value” than something I can get for free.
Right now, many pay subscription websites do not give us any more value then hundreds more out there give us for free…even if the free site is just regurgitating material from the pay sites.
If the quality on the pay sites really is better than all the free bloggers, than people will start to pay.
And quality isn’t just in the writing. It is in the whole user experience. Even if a site has great articles, I am not going to pay for it if it is a pain to navigate, or poorly laid out, or doesn’t provide any “added value” (links, pictures, forums, etc) besides the article.
The problem is not piracy or people’s inherant cheapness. It is competition.
The local daily newpaper used to be the only place people could get the news. Maybe you could choose between a Herald, a Journal, a Sun and a couple of national posts, but now we have access to every local, national and international paper that is out there.
The biggest problem with Old Media is that they have had a (self-imposed) mediocre standard to live up to and now that the veil has been lifted and people have glimpsed the kind of quality that is possible, the are not going to settle – or pay for – anything less than the best.
@Brett You make some valid points but I will disagree with you on a couple of things.
For example reading the news on my iPhone has changed my life. I never have to stress that I don’t have mad origami skillz to read a broad sheet paper like the Chicago Tribune on a crowded train. Nor do I have give evil looks to the guy who has half of his WSJ in my face while he’s turning the page.
The reason web ads can be so annoying is because advertisers realized people were ignoring ads online for the most part the same way they were in print (which I think was print’s guilty little secret). For me a pop up is just as annoying as a full page ad in the NYT.
Your news paper bosses were just as guilty of greed as they were stupidity. Craigslist was created because print folks were charging the same obscene rates online for print classifieds and they didn’t take advantage of the medium or the cost efficiency. Therefore market responded.
Finally unrelated to Brett’s post. If I buy a DVD – I shouldn’t sit through 5 min of bloody commercials before watching my movie that’s just insulting to me as a consumer.
I think this is so true. I just pulled up an article discussing a unreleased big bang pilot episode that was uploaded to YouTube. I want to watch it more out of curiosity than anything else, but Warner Brothers lake copyright claim on all the portions. So now where do I turn? There is only one other alternative really.
I agree with pretty much everything you said in this article. Old media needs to adapt or get blown away and suing customers is not going to fix the problem at all.
I am a musian so I think about this on a regular basis. But what if I were starting a newspaper company. How do you compete with free and still make your content be viewable to all? It’s tough. Advertising might give some kick back but probably won’t be enough to cover any salaries.
And “old media” sites don’t have these errors on their pages:
Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: open(/tmp/sess_c45fdc0e2ff7eb89870a98840fa7e68f, O_RDWR) failed: Permission denied (13) in /home/techi/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-num-captcha/wp-num-captcha.php on line 13