This article focuses on the issue of whether advertising or paywalls are better in generating revenues. According to News UK chief executive Mike Darcey, he refers the Daily Mail and the Guardian as "digital minnows". This is because, they focus on advertising to generate revenue which could lead to problems in the future. As a result, Darcey favours paywalls as free online "undermines the incentive for people to pay for print editions".
Furthermore, Darcey also argues that for news companies to reply on online advertising for revenue is a "dangerous strategy". This is because, they are putting themselves in competition with global conglomerates such as Google and Facebook which may put them at a disadvantage. Significantly, he states: "If this is your only revenue source, then you need to think about the fact that you are head-to-head with the global internet titans". This could suggest that advertising may not be as useful compared to paywalls. Likewise, Andrew Miller the chief executive of Guardian Media Group states that, "ignoring the value of the internet giants is fundamental failure to understand how readers use the web". He also argues that he would of favoured for paywalls if they could have done it but to him membership is about "adding value over and above the consumption of news that people are willing to pay for".
To conclude, I disagree with the Darcey's view that the Guardian and Daily Mail are digital minnow, because if companies included paywalls this could decrease their readership. Although there would be problems if the companies reply on online advertising as their revenue streaming, this may not effect their readership if they do not include paywalls.
No comments:
Post a Comment