Key Quote: "I personally think that paywalls are the way to go"
The article outlines the views of Martin Sorrell on the digital newspaper advertising and the fact that publishers should have paywalls. THE WPP chief executive said that there are a range of factors that make it difficult for publishers to rely solely on digital advertising therefore it is prime that they incorporate paywalls too. This is accentuated by his point "If you have content that has value consumers will pay for it. You have to get your mind around the fact that digital advertising is going to be less profitable.". Thus it is prime that companies make cost adjustments which will help make a more flexible revenue. In addition, the article makes countless references to different media giants such as 'Google' and 'Facebook' and highlights the fact that advertisements are hardly even watched. For instance, most YouTube advertisements are watched on silent, thus detracting from their ultimate purpose, so it is essential that the giants don't rely mainly on advertisements as this isn't always where most of the money floods in through.
In my opinion, I too agree that paywalls should be implemented as it is important, in terms of news organisations, that the journalists and producers are credited for their work. Also, a sense of extreme validity and high quality is conveyed through the feature of a paywall, thus making me trust the product more. In particular, I personally find it deteriorating towards my online experience when repetitive advertisements come up on the screen and I am never inclined to clicking on them.
Article from The The Guardian
The article addresses the BBC's growing decision to decline the TV channel "BBC3" and the fact that it will be switched off by February next year. The channel that has existed for 12 years and is predominantly aimed at the "youth" will "save the corporation about £30million a year in result and will be redirected for the drama budget for BBC1". The content budget for the new online-only service will be £30 million and cut of 50% from it's current level. In result to this, the BBC's reach of 16-24 year olds could fall and in particular "5% of black audiences and women in lower-income households are likely to be be lost". The new online channel will additionally include an age lock system to ensure that the content is watched with parental consent.
In my opinion, I think that this development is disgraceful on behalf of the BBC and unfair to a wide cross section of the youth as it is ruining the television experience of watching much loved programmes that are aimed primarily at the demographic. I think that moving everything "online" isn't a positive thing as it will ultimately effect other industries such as the TV technologies and it is a selfish act made by the "public service broadcaster" - this isn't want the youth public want. I personally think that this is a prominent example of the BBC catering for the mass public not the youth audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment