Support for public broadcasting and the press is a political issue, but not only in Austria.

By comparing data from Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Geert Linnebank from the Reuters Institute of Oxford University have concluded that instruments of media policy have essentially stayed the same since the `80s. In an analysis of countries that subsidize media projects, Nielsen and Linnebank found that most of the money distributed by governments is allocated to the media dinosaurs: broadcasting and print newspapers.

Both print and broadcast news have a long history of residing on the “government drip” in all countries included in the study, either by receiving lush fees, tax breaks, lower postal rates, or even direct state subsidies. Even in the U.S., where media is not traditionally funded by the government, researchers found that each year more than $1 billion in taxpayer money is spent on public television and radio programs, in addition to another $1 billion distributed to newspaper publishers.

And while powerful lobbying on behalf of the media industry ensures continued funding, small startups attempting to conduct media projects have little chance to receive such subsidies.

The most bizarre law discovered in Nielsen and Linnebank’s analysis comes from Italy, where journalism bureaus run by at least two members of parliament can receive funding as long as they intend to publish a print edition of a newspaper.  However one caveat is that the newspaper must have already existed in the marketplace for three years.

Published in Die Furche, Nr. 47/2011

Source: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen/Geert Linnebank (2011): Public Support for the Media. A Six Country Overview of Direct and Indirect Subsidies Report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford

Before hanging himself from a tree in the garden of his house in Puglia, Pierpaolo Faggiano revealed in a letter what had driven him to this extreme act: his precarious working conditions.

For decades the 41-year-old Italian journalist had been a regular contributor to a local newspaper, barely eking out EUR 4 to 20 per article.

Following Faggiano’s suicide many journalists started blaming the unequal Italian media environment for protecting only a small number of regularly paid employees, forcing others to survive on meagre incomes.

The incident unleashed a wave of protests among Italian journalists and bloggers who started asking, on online platforms and in street demonstrations, for more respectable labour conditions.

They pointed the finger at the increasing number of media organisations that use underpaid freelancers as regular contributors.

The protests also drew attention to the knots and holes of the old-fashioned and gerontocratic Italian media system and blamed it for undermining high quality journalism through the wide practice of nepotism in the recruiting process of journalists.

Italian media does not favour a free and competitive job market, the demonstrators claimed.

Widespread low pay

The dire situation was already manifest long before the incident. “In the last year or two, there has been a growing awareness of the illegal working conditions that oppress journalists,” said 31-year old freelance reporter Maria Raffaella Cosentino.

Cosentino was in the Calabrian town of Rosarno and later in Castel Volturno, near Naples, during the violent clashes between immigrant day labourers and residents in January and February 2010 and says she realised at that moment that many local and national TV and print journalists covering the event were paid less than the EUR 50 per day that the fruit and vegetable pickers were demanding from the landowners.

Cosentino decided to write an e-book on the topic, Quattro per cinque (“Four per five”)*, and to launch a campaign “Non lavoro per meno di cinquanta euro,” calling on journalists to turn down assignments which would pay less than EUR 50 per article.

According to a 2010 national survey by the ODG the low-pay practice is indifferently carried out by national newspapers, magazines and television stations.

The study revealed that many print or online newspapers such as Il Messaggero, la Repubblica, Il Tempo or the national news agency ANSA, pay EUR 2 to an average of EUR 20 for articles of varying length.

In some cases, reporters who had written for the leftist daily publication Il Manifesto said they had never been paid.

The situation is no different at television stations, where a number of local journalists earn a wage of EUR 12 for shooting, editing, writing, and doing the voice-over for a story.

Conditions are not better even at the Italian national broadcasting company RAI. “I made fifteen 20-minute-long features for RAI,” said Roberta Borcella, a 40-year-old freelance video journalist. “I worked nearly one month to produce each video, for which I received eight months later a net income of EUR 900, my cameraman’s costs included.”

The information and communication sector is feeling the pinch everywhere. But while many media outlets in other parts of the world are experimenting with new strategies and investing in innovation, Italian journalism is still struggling with a personal identity crisis.

“[Italian journalism] is too awkward, past-oriented and absurdly self-referential. It doesn’t just report on the country’s state of affairs, it is a complete part of them,” former Reuters reporter Roberto Bonzio said in an interview.

According to official rules, Italian aspiring journalists have two options in order to obtain a professional writing licence from the Italian Order of Journalists ODG, the state-approved organisation which regulates Italian journalism.

The first option is to undergo a 18-month training in a media outlet or to enroll in one of the 16 journalism schools recognised by the Order, and to pass a national final exam to become full-time professionisti.

The second option for aspiring journalists is to become part-time pubblicisti. In this case, they need to prove that they have carried out a two-year paid journalistic activity and produced 60-80 articles.

But a writer’s license does not necessarily guarantee a job as a journalist.

An ambiguous status

In addition to this distinction, says Robert Bonzio, Italian journalists can be divided into two categories: the elite who benefits from a standard journalistic contract, and all the rest. “[This privileged minority] is like a blockhouse of times gone by. Outside of this group, there are a number of underpaid contributors – most of whom are full time journalists working without any form of protection – who are forced to endue their editors’ blackmails and whims.”

The condition of this group of outsiders is so unclear that it is difficult to even define their job status. Most of them are freelancers or precari.

But the word “freelancer,” commonly used to refer to self-employed workers who write for various clients on a temporary basis, is ambiguously used in Italy to refer to a confusingly wide range of media professionals working from piece-writers to regular contributors with no contract.

Precari on the other hand is a term referring to workers on temporary and short-term contracts, who live in precarious financial situations because of this type of employment.

In a country where the average annual salary in 2009 amounted to about EUR 16,000, according to OECD figures, an LSDI webzine survey revealed that over 55 percent of Italian freelancers and nearly 50 percent of precari journalists earn less than EUR 5,000 per year.

Only about 19 percent of journalists are permanent full-time employees. Their salaries vary between EUR 30,000 to 50,000 per year.

The survey also revealed that the number of unemployed journalists soared to nearly 5.000 by the end of 2010, representing an increase of 44 percent compared to 2002.

When the issue was brought to Parliament, Italian MPs condemned the exploitation of media workers and called on editors to apply respectable payments.

They also expressed concern over the fact that underpaid journalists are more easily liable to be blackmailed.

The Parliament’s Culture Committee on October 26, 2011 approved a bill affirming the right of journalists to receive an “adequate payment”, but the act is just at the beginning stage of the legislative process.  When and if it is finally approved, it will provide a framework against journalists’ exploitation.

“In the past a young journalist would get trained over time and climb up the career ladder until reaching the status of full-time employee,” commented Alessandra Comazzi, a representative of the FNSI trade union. “But now Italian freelancers seem to stay in a state of eternal limbo of exploited trainees.”

A stagnant and gerontocratic media job market

Journalists who apply for a full-time position often encounter a media recruitment system that is largely based on nepotism. When asked about the way they managed to obtain a full-time contract, some journalists refer to luck, and others simply do not answer.

Job openings in journalism are rarely advertised and the hiring process mostly depends on one’s connections. This mechanism tragically affects the quality of staff writers, who are not necessarily hired in accordance with their merit.

“The reason that Italian journalism – in particular, television journalism – is of very poor quality is due to the fact that the selection of individuals who are allowed into the system starts after the exclusion of the smartest people and of everyone who would be inclined to practise journalism as a public service,” said Wolfgang Achtner, a Rome-based TV journalist and former ABC news, CNN and Press TV correspondent with a long experience in Italian television.

Moreover, the media job market, already small, is partly controlled by the Order of Journalists. Often, one of the first application requirements is to be licensed by the Order. The structure of many newsrooms mirrors that of the Order, because they are made up by journalists licensed by the Order, who, in turn, will only consider hiring new colleagues licensed by the Order.

Even if the Order of Journalists strives to work out an agreement with the National Journalists Union (FNSI) and the Federation of Editors and Publishers (FIEG) to increase the payment of freelancers and precari, licensed and non-licensed journalists alike hold the ODG as one of the responsible parties for Italy’ s stagnant and gerontocratic media job market.

“The Order is a fascist relic whose main purpose is to perpetuate itself. Press freedom, independence or quality of information, are not its goals,” says U.S. editor at IJNET Nicole Martinelli, who worked as a foreign freelancer registered with the Order for about 10 years. “Yet you can’t be a professional journalist of any standard without belonging to it. The Order is a bottleneck to the profession that forces a lot of talent out.”

The Order’s response to the freelancers’ protests and requests came on September 8, 2011 with the launch of a new Internet portal dedicated to sharing news and experiences from temporary media journalists.

The website served as a platform to discuss the draft of a new bill of rights, the so-called “Carta di Firenze.” It was conceived as an instrument to request better wages for freelancers and precari. In theory, it allows the Order to take disciplinary actions against exploitation of journalists.

An agreement between the Order and freelancers and precari was signed during a demonstration held in Florence on October 7-8 of several hundred journalists asking for better work conditions.

“[The portal and the demonstration] are not enough and they come too late, absolutely. But better late than never,” commented an Italian journalists group on Linkedin.

While many expressed doubts on social media platforms about the ODG measures, the participants of the demonstration in Florence affirmed their commitment to improve the situation of underpaid Italian journalists.

“Our goal is not to undermine the working conditions of our full-time colleagues,  but we are asking for an adequate compensation for the others,” said Nicola Chiarini from the freelancers association in Veneto. “A precarious journalism means a precarious democracy.”

* Maria Cosentino said that the idea of the title “Quattro per cinque” came from a specific incident that happened to a journalist in the Calabria region. The journalist was wounded by five bullets shot at him for a report on the mafia (‘ndrangheta), and was paid 4 cents per line. Cosentino used the case as an example and metaphor.

Original article can be viewed at the European Journalism Centre.

Arthur J. Sulzberger

You certainly know Rupert Murdoch, but have you heard of Arthur J. Sulzberger?

Only a few years ago Murdoch’s News Corp. swallowed the Wall Street Journal, turned it upside down, eliminated a few archaic tendencies and re-launched the paper. At the time, there was much speculation about whether the New York Times would have to deal with a dangerous competitor on its own turf. For a while, the “Grey Lady” – as Americans affectionately refer to the paper – was close to insolvency. Fortunately Mexican investor and TV-magnate Carlos Slim came to the rescue, investing $250 million dollars in the NYT.

Since then, the situation seems to have become less tense. The New York Times could, within a short time span, stand to generate 400,000 online users for their paywall-protected content. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has been suffering from reputational damage due to its Murdoch affiliation. Many years ago the Springer Company in Germany was forced to learn a similar lesson, and in short, it’s a difficult balancing act. That is, earning most of your money with yellow press trash while still attempting to maintain a role in the upper elite market of high quality newspapers. The credibility and dignity which the New York Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung have attained is simply difficult to match for papers belonging to larger media conglomerates.

Published in Die Furche, No. 39/2011, by Stephan Russ-Mohl

Can one make a living as a freelance journalist in Lithuania?

Are you fed up with the tedious working hours in your cubicle? And don’t you have to admit that the news editor is a walking nagger whom you cannot stand? Would you rather be your own boss? If so, freelancing is obviously the way to go.

Being a freelance journalist in Lithuania, however, i.e. handling your time the way you want and taking on gigs you desire, might turn out to be quite a different experience from what it means in a Western European country or the U.S.

“Sometimes I have the impression that Lithuania is the only country where throngs of pensioners and kindergarten teachers resort to freelancing in a desperate attempt to add some extra income to their low pensions and salaries,” says Paulius Tumosa, Programme Director of European Radio, a radio station in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.

Tumosa has been trying hard to establish himself as a freelancer in print media, but has now given up the fight.

“It just does not make sense to be a freelancer in Lithuania,” he says. “The sheer majority of newspapers opt for relying on their in-house journalists, whom they pay a salary of LTL 1000 litas (EUR 289 euros), rather than commissioning stories from freelancers.”

In the crisis years 2008-2009, when most financially-hit outlets axed their journalists, Tumosa had hoped that the demand for freelancers would increase. This, however, did not happen.

“On the contrary, editorial offices, after cutting their full-time journalists’ salaries nearly to the minimum wage, let go of their freelancers, and had all the writing done by their in-house staff,” Tumosa explains.
At the peak of his freelance career, the 24-year-old journalist was not able to work for more than three to four print outlets at a time.

“One website which was initially interested in publishing my stories ended up deciding that it did not need any external help in filling up its content. The editors did not even explain to me whether there was something wrong with my stories. They simply let me go,” Tumosa says.

He declined to mention the name of the news site, fearing “adverse consequences in the future.”

Another outlet, a regional newspaper in the industrial town of Taurage in the southwest of the country, kept commissioning stories from him for a while, paying LTL 100 (EUR 28) per a piece. With the crisis worsening, however, his honorary was slashed more than twice, down to LTL 40 (EUR 11) per a piece.

“My self-esteem would not allow me to continue working for such poor pay. I just quit writing. Sadly, a grocery shop assistant earns more than most Lithuanian journalists, especially in the province,” says Tumosa, who graduated from Vilnius University’s Institute of Journalism.

He believes the editors of the provincial newspaper would only commission stories that its in-house reporters did not wish to take on.

“I felt that some journalists would avoid certain topics for fear of possible reprisals from the people quoted in their stories, who often tended to be the local big shots,” Tumosa said. He also contributed as a freelancer for the major daily Lietuvos Rytas for a while, until he was waived.

“We see the future of our newspaper with our in-house full-time journalists,” one of the editors told him. “We are not interested in freelancers’ stories, unless somebody comes up with some explosive stuff.”
Tumosa says he is not aware of any print media freelancer who would be able to make ends meet by freelancing only.

“I have heard that the New York Times pays USD 1000 for a feature piece. Sure, most print media outlets in Western Europe pay less, but none as little as in Lithuania, where you receive USD 20 or less for a feature story. How many of them do you need to get published if you want to make a living as a freelancer?” Tumosa asks.

“The Lithuanian media market is too small,” he says. “It relies exclusively on full-timers. In addition, there is no freelancing tradition.”

Ramune Ramanauskiene, editor and director of the Taurages Zinios, a weekly newspaper in Taurage, says she works with several freelance journalists.

“One freelancer steadily contributes to our sport section,” Ramanauskiene says. “I commission some stories from him and he proposes his own ideas as well. I like his style and work ethics. I don’t know, however, if he fits the description of a Western European freelance journalist, as we, unfortunately, can only offer him a very symbolic low fee. I believe freelance assignments should be met with a certain competitiveness in payment, an aspect which is missing in Lithuania.”

In Ramanauskiene’s view, freelancing in Lithuania is for the most part not as much about a certain lifestyle and a career choice as it is about earning some extra money.

“There is no way a freelance journalist could make a living from freelance writing in the province, as all newspapers rely on their in-house staff,” she says.

According to Ramanauskiene, provincial editors rely mostly on retired educated people and low-paid professionals, such kindergarten teachers, to fill up the space in their newspapers. “I would rather call them contributors than freelancers,” she says.

“I am not sure whether they can be called freelancers, because not only is there a lack of competitive compensation, but the other aspects of what I cannot imagine freelancing without – professionalism and quality – are also missing. As amateur contributors, they, as a rule, lack the in-depth skills that a professional freelance journalist, I assume, must have,” Ramanauskiene argues.

She points out that, traditionally, journalists in Lithuania, especially in the regions, feel more secure when they are “attached” to their editorial offices.

“They want to go and work at their editorial offices every day and occupy their desks the way their parents and grandparents did,” Ramanauskiene explains. “True freelancers, I assume, enjoy their independence. It is the core of the business. In Lithuania, most contributors usually write for one newspaper. I believe that old-fashioned editors would not allow them to write for other newspapers.” She says that she is aware of successful freelancers working for the most popular television programmes. “As far as I know, however, they come from other fields of life, such as politics, economics and show business. Only very few certified journalists work as freelancers,” says Ramanauskiene.

Dainius Radzevicius, chairman of Lithuania’s Journalist Union, says there are dozens of people working for honoraria in the Lithuanian media.“Only very few have established their careers as freelancers. Most write for small honoraria to somewhat increase their wages. I would not even call them freelancers. The salary is the line that separates Lithuanian from Western European freelancers,” Radzevicius emphasised.

Aronas Bagdonas, a former freelance journalist in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, says he put an end to his freelance activities because he was unable to make ends meet. “I was lucky to find a full-time job as a translator,” Bagdonas reveals.

Genoveita Burneikiene, a former lecturer at Vilnius University’s Institute of Journalism, says that freelance journalists are still relatively “a new thing” in the national media landscape. “Most editorial offices, particularly in the province, are still dominated by senior editors reminiscent of the Soviet era, who organise their newsrooms the way they did twenty years ago,” Burneikiene says. “Many of them are afraid that skilled freelance journalists might overshadow their in-house staff, and even themselves,” she adds. “That is the essential difference with Western news outlets, who build their reputation on the prominence of their journalists, usually freelancers.”

*Original article published by Linus Jegelevicius and the European Journalism Centre, September 9, 2011.

It was like watching the movie from the day before yesterday.

Suddenly, all the three of them were back: Leo Kirch, Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch, the tycoons who influentially roughed up the media business in Europe during the 80s and 90s. We’ve seen obituaries for the first, whose empire had already decayed years ago. As of late, the other two have appeared in headlines due to qualm-less abuses of power, resulting in scandalous news coverage and most probably more than a few sleepless nights upon facing such magnificent losses of power.

The moment these two scoundrels will need to resign draws nearer, and it’s likely their empires will somehow dissipate. Even if Berlusconi’s preference would be to continue his centerstage post at future bunga-bunga parties until the ripe age of 100 in order to deviate media attention from dirty business and political affairs, where he’s triumphant in only one area: creating laws directly supporting his business interests or those that protect him from criminal prosecution.

Yet who will succeed the three? Unfortunately, there are few families of entrepreneurs in sight like the Ochs-Sulzbergers who, generation after generation, have protected the New York Times against a turbulent environment, enabling their newsrooms to provide high quality journalism in the public interest. Rather, Internet pioneers like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Larry Page of Google will become the protagonists of a new generation of media entrepreneurs: People who make successful business with social networks and search engines while remaining aware that they must somehow provide journalistic content, despite being unaware of what “good” quality journalism looks like.

Published in Die Furche, August 4, 2011.

Views on industry associations as an engine of change.

Industry associations are almost as old as the newspaper industry itself. Before the 70s and  80s, industry associations acted as pressure groups engaged in labour and public policy debates.  However, toward the last decade their role has shifted; consequently, these associations served as advocates for common benefits through mobilization, training and research efforts.

In this article I’ll review a study published by Mattias Nordqvist, Robert G. Picard, and Ossi Pesämaa entitled “Industry Associations as Change Agents: The Institutional Roles of Newspaper Associations,” published in the Journal of Media Business Studies (2010).

To begin, let me create a common framework which will allow us to understand the dimension of the article we’re reviewing here. In simple terms, newspaper industry associations are “organizations funded by other organizations to fulfil their collective purposes.” Collective purposes should be understood as the following: promoting best practices, providing training, conducting research, establishing business intelligence, and foreseeing potential avenues for change.

What makes these associations unique is their voluntary character, meaning the survival of such organizations depends upon the survival of members. Legitimating processes enrich and strengthen news associations, guaranteeing stability in the long-term. Both regional and international newspaper industry associations have their relevance as they serve two different purposes: the regional ones are more focused on lobbying, while the international associations utilize something closer to a normative approach.

Surprisingly little research has been conducted in the field of newspaper industry associations. The study reviewed focuses on the institutional aspect of these newspaper associations. As with every scientific paper the authors established a starting point: how do newspaper industry associations that serve individual newspapers companies influence changing strategies?

In order to find an answer, several interviews were conducted with top management of the most important American newspaper associations. Before analysing the results in detail, it is important to get to know these four newspaper industry associations. The International Newspaper Marketing Association (INMA) is concerned with two main activities - advertising and marketing practices – and it provides local services in more than 80 countries; The Newspaper Association of America (NAA) conducts research on industry trends and development with the aim of promoting innovation among newspaper owners; The American Press Institute (API) provides training for executives; and finally, the World Association of Newspapers (WAN-IFRA) publishes magazines and pieces of research in addition to organizing seminars and conferences for executives.

All interviews were guided according to a questionnaire delivered to the interviewees in advance. They took place at each respective office, lasting an average of 60 minutes.

Conclusions drawn from the interviews are organized according to  three functions that act as change agents: mimetic, coercive and normative.

Mimetic function deals with changes applied in other industries and how they might be implemented in the newspaper business. For DeLeon and Khattak (INMA) it’s all about innovation and “how we can get people there based on what their needs are.” The question that arises here is to which extent innovation is a key success factor and whether it is better to be a pioneer, a follower or a late adopter.

The coercive function refers to the sharing of knowledge through websites, magazines, events, and reports to improve coordination and performance. Its importance goes beyond the data, putting emphasis on the interaction process, where publishers, advertisers, manufacturers and journalists share their thoughts.

A normative function is needed according to Stone (API), because the members of news associations expect answers regarding future perspectives and business opportunities. What is more, in the words of Wilkinson (INMA) “we need a marketing culture, we do not need an editorial culture.” This implies a modernization of the old hierarchical systems and a more horizontal sharing of information, as well as an early adoption of new trends.

Executives at newspaper industry associations perceive themselves as value-adders, earlier adopters of new media. Nevertheless, their influence on newspaper directors depends upon age and experience. From time to time these associations find themselves in trouble with journalists’ unions as they are more ethically than commercially-oriented.

After analysing the results of this research, the strong role newspaper industry associations play in the media business is undeniable. I anticipate a greater influence of news industry associations on the business in the near future. Due to the institutionalization of these associations, newspapers owners view them as “answer providers” or even as “fortune-tellers.” This allows the associations to conduct research and to analyze new trends. What is more, these associations have formal communication channels that make the exchange of information easier, thus providing a forum for debate.

In the fragmented global media scene, newspaper industry associations gather existing business trends under an umbrella, providing opportunities for those interested in shaping of the news business.

Mattias Nordqvist, Robert G. Picard, and Ossi Pesämaa, “Industry Associations as Change Agents: The Institutional Roles of Newspaper Associations,” Journal of Media Business Studies 7(3):51-69 (2010).

While some media professionals argue loudly over ethical issues tied to sponsored news content, Bart Brouwers quietly gets down to business, charging his “advertisers” for articles.

According to a recent European Journalism Centre article, Brouwers, creator of a network of Dutch sites following the model of hyperlocal journalism, claims to push the envelope with regard to the “mixed zone” between editorial and commercial content. Unlike traditional newspapers, the Dictbij network of hyperlocal news websites – Telegraaf Media Groep (TMG) project and Brouwers’ brainchild –  charge clients by messages conveyed rather than per square ad centimeter. Implementation may involve links to client websites smattered within certain features as well as articles focused on clients’ events and products deemed “advertorials,” which in some cases may translate to “articles not expressly identified as advertising.”

Despite the controversial financing, however, the project has seen success in the Netherlands. Brouwers believes that small-scale local news issues still remain of greater significance to people than large-scale events happening elsewhere. Thus, all stories on Dichtbij websites are told from the local relevance point of view. 

Apparently, such perspective gives the network a clear advantage. The number of employees at Dichtbij increased from one to 80 within a year and that figure is expected  to surpass 100 by summer’s end.When compared to the thousands laid off globally, the rapid growth is what makes the network impressive.

The number of active Dichtbij websites, each with its own editorial staff, also increased rapidly from three to 85 last month, when more than 80 weekly newspapers turned their online activity over to the project. The amount of “light sites,” aggregating content from other sites exceeds 200.

Many professionals have said in the past that sponsored content puts media objectivity at risk. Brouwers argues that most of the sponsored news items published are relevant to the local community and would have been covered by the media anyway. “The only difference is we get paid for it,” he says. The decision to publish such material, according to him, remains purely editorial. Only time and further research can shed light on whether (or better, to what degree) content is contaminated by external influences.

For more information see Alexandru-Brăduţ Ulmanu’s article at the European Journalism Centre.

Slovakia’s online media join forces to alter audience attitudes about paid content.

As of late, media-focused websites like the Nieman Journalism Lab and paidContent.org, have noted an interesting initiative launched in Slovakia. On April 18th, nine of Slovakia’s major media organizations (including daily newspapers, weekly magazines and a television station) partnered with the Piano Media platform to introduce a new payment system. Now, nearly all online content provided by such media companies is no longer available for free in Slovakia.

Users must pay € 2.90 per month (or € 0.99 per week) for access to 34 different sections and services offered by the nine publishers and broadcasters. Seventy percent of that amount is allocated to participating content providers. The remaining 30 percent covers Piano Media’s margin (approximately 5 to 10 percent) and the costs of financial transactions.

The rate at which individual websites are shutting down content varies (for example, there are differences in the ability to post comments and access to archives after a certain time). The pattern is entirely new  – and not only in the Slovak media marketplace.

According to Tomas Bella, the man behind the Piano Media project, the point of this initial phase is not to make money, but to transform the habits and attitudes of the Slovak media audience. The primary benefit for users is that they pay a reasonable price only once per month for access to a wide range of online content. This is considered the key argument in encouraging readers to subscribe to the service.

Of course, some are critical, or at least skeptical, of the project. According to Andrew Phelps from the Nieman Journalism Lab, it would be rather impossible to replicate the Slovak model in countries like the United States, as the size of the Slovak media market and language isolation are both factor into the model’s feasibility. Additionally, as Joshua Keating from foreignpolicy.org observed, in the U.S. such a initiative “would fall afoul of antitrust rules.”

Regardless, the Slovak experiment is an exciting development and we will follow its evolution closely.

For more information, see Nieman Journalism Lab.

Marie-Luise Kiefer, a renowned media economist in the German-speaking world, dares to go far.

She’s searching for a “third road”  to finance journalism, as the current private business solution of financing newsrooms with advertising revenue no longer seems to work. Hence, she suggests a transformation for journalism  – similar to that taken on by medical doctors and lawyers – into a state of professional, collegial self-organization.  Given journalism’s relevance for democracy, she suggests that the state should become responsible for “the reorganization of journalism, including its funding.” The “journalist” would become a “protected denomination of a profession, which is bound at theoretical and practical training curricula and respective exams” – similar to the profession’s status in Italy, where, however, such state exams have not helped improve journalistic quality. Public financing should, according to Kiefer, allow “journalism the autonomous production of its  service in the public interest.”

Contrary to Kiefer’s assumption, researchers at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford are not sure Europe will feel the effects of a journalism crisis similar to the one currently plaguing the U.S.  “It is premature to announce the death of the newspaper, of television, and certainly of commercial news organisations more widely,” summarize David A.L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, who analze the effects of changing business models in their most recent book.  The authors observe vastly different scenarios for the development of media in various European countries, the U.S., Brazil and India. “In fact, many American commercial legacy news oganizations seem to be facing a more serious crisis than their counterparts elsewhere, and it is by no means certain that this is simply a precursor for things to come around the world. The United States may well be more of an exception and less of a forerunner than is sometimes assumed in discussions of international media developments.” 

This is an exciting perspective. Certainly part of the crisis of American journalism is homemade. It has been – as Michael Schudson (Columbia University) points out in his contribution about the U.S. – also a consequence of U.S. casino capitalism.  Many investors, expecting a continuous flow of high profits, contracted heavy debts at the wrong moment in order to buy up newspapers.

In another contribution dedicated to the newspaper crisis in Germany, Frank Esser and Michael Brüggemann (Universität Zürich) are, on top, questioning Kiefer’s basic assumption about the indispensability of professional journalism for democracy. According to them, “democracy requires publishers or journalists only to the extent that their presence is necessary to sustain an informed, unrestrained, and stimulated public sphere.” At many places in the world they see “a public sphere evolving without professional journalists” – another rather courageous statement, perhaps requiring additional empirical support.

Let us, however, return to the suffering of quality media, in particular national newspapers. Another new book, edited by Swiss media researchers Roger Blum, Heinz Bonfadelli, Kurt Imhof and Otfried Jarren, draws attention to the “lighthouses of public communication.” In his contribution, media economist Lars Rinsdorf (Hochschule der Medien, Stuttgart) argues for better marketing and brand management of media companies, corresponding with distinct demands for quality standards which need to be maintained. To sustain quality media, it should be profitable to invest in newsrooms where resources and structures enable newsroom enhancement and the opportunity to engage in public debates. In order to keep from filing such ideas under “wishful thinking,” media companies must find ways to receive such resources from their publics. Thus, a public debate about the future of journalism may be required – a discourse which has been neglected by the mass media thus far. If it were to take place at an adequate social level, the subsidies Kiefer demands could become superfluous.  Aside from an exuberantly growing public broadcasting sector, there is certainly no need for a new caste behind a publicly financed “firewall,” whose members’ income would be secured by taxpayers. So far, according to Ringsdorf,  most quality media outlets have found such protection under the roof of large media conglomerates.  “This is why they resemble five-star cooks: Only large hotels can afford to adorn themselves with their art,” he says.

Published in Schweizer Journalist, Nr. 4+5/2011
        

Sources:

Kiefer, Marie Luise (2011): Die schwierige Finanzierung des Journalismus, in: Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59. Jg./Heft 1, 5-22
Levy, David A.L. /Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (eds.) (2010): The Changing Business of Journalism and its Implication for Democracy, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford

Rinsdorf, Lars (2011): Vom Zugewinn der Marken: Potentiale überregionaler Qualitätszeitungen auf dem Nutzermarkt und ihre Voraussetzungen, in: Roger Blum et al. (Hrsg.) (2011): Krise der Leuchttürme öffentlicher Kommunikation. Vergangenheit und Zukunft der Qualitätsmedien. 260 S. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 221-238

An overview of financing models in the Anglo-Saxon world.

As the traditional business model for journalism no longer works, the publishing industry, Internet start-ups and consultants search for new ways to support newsrooms without depending on advertising revenue. The “trial and error” initiatives accompanying this process have since become difficult to overlook.

In their latest book, Funding Journalism in the Digital Age: Business Models, Strategies, Issues and Trends, Jeff Kaye and Stephen Quinn provide an overview, presenting the most-discussed potential financing models – among them partnerships of media companies with giants like Google and Yahoo, adjusting news websites to search engines in order to reel in readers, and the increasing focus on hyper-local news content. Also included are experiments such as “dayparting” – attempting to reach new groups of online consumers by adapting content to the daily information-seeking patterns of users.

Micropayments are presented as crowdfunding projects aiming to finance journalism with voluntary contributions. The initiatives of select philanthropist-millionaires (like ProPublica funders Herbert and Marion Sandler) may help investigative journalism survive in the Internet age, as would billions of “endowment dollars” needed to continuously finance newsrooms like the New York Times or the Washington Post from the dividends of a capital stock.

Kaye has extensive experience working as a journalist, media consultant and academic in the U.S. and Great Britain. Quinn is a journalism professor in Australia and spent more than two decades as a journalist in the United Kingdom and Australia. He recently spent a sabbatical at Stanford University in California. The authors’ pooled competence allows for an informed overview, albeit partially superficial. Sources are mentioned, but frequently not well documented, and many elements simply can’t be tapped into in only 177 pages.

The main drawback of the book is its focus on the anglophone world. Certainly, this is where the music plays (mostly), as many of the Internet’s innovations still arrive from the U.S. and the print media crisis has reached much more dramatic dimensions there. Yet interesting business models have been developed in other language areas, for example in Scandinavia, as well as collateral products like books, CDs, videos in Italy and Spain. Such aspects are unfortunately escaping the attention of the authors.

Published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, October 19, 2010

Jeff Kaye/Stephen Quinn:  Funding Journalism in the Digital Age: Business Models, Strategies, Issues and Trends, New York u.a.: Peter Lang, 2010