"Paid News" -- There must be a solution!

There has been a lot of news about the concept of "Paid News" recently; it is best summed up in this latest Paid News for Dummies by Sevanti Ninan in the Hindu. What surprises me, however, is that very little has been said, by the media, about solutions to this 'necessary evil'. There have been references to self regulation and perhaps, an independent regulator. Other than creating post-retiral benefits to a few more bureaucrats, I don't see how just creating yet another regulator will help. And I don't think "learning to live with it" is a solution either.

Based on my telecom industry experience, I propose two "commercial" solutions:

1. Allow International Media / News Companies to Enter India
The Indian media space is crowded by family (or individual) run companies. Even though some of them are listed and/or have international partners, management control vests firmly with the Indian owners. Given the very high entry costs in the space, there is a tendency amongst new entrants to mimic practices that have been made popular by the incumbents... nobody has really shaken up the market. Increasing the level of competition - with the entry of global players, with their scale, content and practices - may put some pressure on the rest of the industry. The Internet has begun to create competitive pressure, enabling alternative points of view and the questioning of media "holy cows". We just need more, independent and well-funded competitors.

2. Strengthen the Govt.-owned Incumbent
Strange as it might sound, a strong Government-owned competitor is not such a bad thing. For years, in the telecom space, BSNL and MTNL determined the price-points in the market place and kept everyone else in check. Now that the market is mature, the private operators are stronger and bigger than the incumbents. To some extent, this was true even in the airline industry. It is another matter that in both cases, the incumbents were not given sufficient independence to grow to their rightful position. A well-managed, public-sector player can often keep the industry (and new entrants) in check: take banking for instance. The Government would do well to let Prasar Bharti (Doordarshan) become a more meaningful player in the media space by bringing in professional management and perhaps, listing the corporation.

A strong playing field that includes global majors and a strong public-sector incumbent is perhaps the best model for most of our industries: media, telecom, banking, insurance, airlines, etc. Regulation can then help set the rules and boundaries of engagement. 
12 responses
interesting perspective and great food for thought.

while you have looked at the problem from the content perspective, i believe innovative and alternate streams of revenue generation would also help address this malice. the media's bottomline is under pressure and the proliferation of paid news in different avtars is essentially one of the side effects of the drive from news organisations to improve profitability. not-for-profit journalism unfortunately does not exist here by choice.

i dont see many media houses experimenting with this and most of them are going for the low hanging fruit which is paid news. an option that could be explored is better engagement with readers; providing value add to them enabling strong relationships which in turn could the be leveraged for revenues through partnerships (surveys, industry reports, shopping, education, etc.)

i also believe by bringing media outlets under the RTI ambit (exclude areas like citing sources etc), we could see a marked improvement not just in addressing the paid news problem but many others that currently plague the media industry.

we are also not keeping up with the times enough. i dont see any wow factor in the way most media organisations are using the web. compare this with what say a NYT does with it's web edition and we will see we are generations behind.

all this in addition to strengthening of disclosure norms, educating readers, clear demarcation between paid and editorial news, would help address this issue.

@Surekha Thanks for your great comments! The idea about new sources of revenues to substitute for "paid news" is good (VAS equivalent of telecom): not sure anybody is doing that now.

I completely agree that media companies have to be profitable, else nobody will invest in capacity & capability building.

We are also not seeing anyone move towards charging for content. Somehow I cannot see advertising subsidizing content forever. We might see content and the medium/pipe becoming "paid" again - paid for by the consumers and not the suppliers. This is the big battle (globally) for this decade.

Nice timely post with good suggestions!

As much as I used dislike DD in the early 1990s (and was keen to see private news channels enter the market), now it seems at times, DD is a better news channel than the other players! Yes - they do give a lot of coverage to the Government .. but atleast they are not shrill, over-the-top and sensationalism & hype-driven. And they deliver 'news' as opposed to 'snippets' and 'sound-bytes'.

What would help improve this further is some kind of a public-private partnership. Today, DD/AIR are completely government owned.

I have been a big fan of BBC (UK) and National Public Radio/Public Broadcasting Service (US).

NPR/PBS - has a nice model - Listeners & viewers contribute close to 50% of revenue(voluntarily - no subscription). Government and various foundation grants provide the remaining.

BBC gets some funding from the Gov, but maintains more independence.

To me, this hybrid model offers the best of both worlds.

Amit

I have gone through Sevanti Ninan’s piece as well as the views expressed above. My observations are as follows :

a. Ninan talks about paid news in the context of parties/organizations and not individual readers. Surprising. Do we assume individual readers WILL NOT pay for news? I do not agree with a ‘yes’ answer. Let us recall the launch of DTH and realize that people WILL pay for anything good that the media houses have to offer.
b. The media industry faces ethical dilemma just as any other industry does. I agree with Srinivasa that self regulation and more competition in the industry are the only solution. Any media house that sells out to lobbyists on the pretext of ‘paid news’ will lose credibility among readers in a perfectly competitive marketplace. A punishment enough.
c. On the larger issue of profitability of publications, I foresee technological advancements and convergence playing a big role in the future. The number of internet users is increasing by the day. Broadband services are getting rolled out. Major corporations are getting together to converge TV and internet. These developments offer a plethora of platforms to develop a viable business model for publications.

Twitter id ; @amancool5

i like the VAS analogy. paid content is a debate i have tried tracking and as of now, no one seems to have any definite answers. would be great to see some concrete solutions emerging. interesting times.

p.s. - im also thinking posterous should allow an option to edit comments. in my excitement to comment first and fast, malaise became malice!

@Amit Thanks. Doordarshan news sure does bring back great memories (and remember, NDTV started off from there!) The BBC and NPR/PBS are good benchmarks for where Prasar Bharti should get to.
@Aman Thanks for your comment.

I firmly believe that good content will be paid for, by users, if somebody can find a way to price it appropriately and charge it smartly. It's the incumbent (newspapers) who used their advertising muscle to try and price newcomers out (Re 1 or 2)... Technology should help new entrants access the market with lower upfront, fixed costs.

I think the Government is taking a "closed" or protective view of most things nowadays. We benefit the most from globalization but are generally unwilling to open up our market to other players.

amit, completely agree with your views on DD. i know people who continue to watch DD and no one other channel because they do not care for sensationalisation or even opinion/analysis to a large extent. it is a pity that DD has not been able to compete with the other players especially when most of them are mediocre at best. PPP is a brilliant idea and i wish they would seriously consider it.

aman, the comparison with DTH is interesting. users will only pay for unique content and not for content that is available for free and in abundance elsewhere.

let me play the devils advocate here.
instead of getting all moralistic about "paid" aspect of things here, id like to redefine it as have a "bias", as economists would define it. some media entities have a a bias towards carrying news that is paid for. now how is this different from media entities have an editorial bias. The Hindu is supposedly a left leaning paper, The Hindustan Times quite openly a carries a Congress agenda, The India Today supposedly has a hidden saffron agenda. if those positions are acceptable, then why get all moralistic about someone having a monetary bias.

a bias is a bias, no matter what the source of it is. be it an ideology or money. lets just say some have an overtly capitalistic ideology :)

i know this sounds silly, but i honestly believe the only way one can expect to beat the Big Bad Media Monster is to beat them in the market place. and looks like no one has done that quite yet, or even figured out a way to do it.

here are some facts:
Not-So-Big-Media-Company enters markets other than their own core market, slashes cover prices and kicks the incumbents ass all over the country and in a 15 yr period emerges as the Big Bad Media Monster.
Yet when the battle enters the core market of BBMM, everyone else trying to beat them drops prices. Surprise Surprise it doesnt work. BBMM manages to defend the price point and now charges a premium (compared to other markets). And consumers are willing to pay a premium, and not seem to care that its a Big Bad Media Monster, with an obviously blatant capitalistic agenda.

so all this wringing of hands is just that. until all the supposedly intelligent people who care for the future of journalism in this country can figure out a way to beat the BBMM.

apologies for writing a "column" instead of a comment :)

Hi idiot :-)

Thanks for your comment... very good points. This cannot be a "moral" debate at all; there is no point in making the media out to be the "fourth estate"... they are a business and must be expected to behave like a profit-seeking business. That's the reason I advocate more competition, both from global players and the public sector.

We can live with any biases, as long as (a) we know what they are and (b) we have alternatives to choose from. My worry is that the media is biased (as we all know) but pretends to be holier-than-thou!

What we need, therefore, are:
1. Media houses (and their loud anchors) to step off that high-moral ground pretense

2. Easing of FDI norms in media to encourage entry of new players

3. An improved PPP model for Prasar Bharti, with professional governance/management

@addepalli
I beleive good top level manager in the board and proper marketing would place Doordarshan in a better position in terms of viewership. If PPP is a solution then why are BSNL and other navartnas doing well.

@idiot dont agree with u on 'bias is a bias'. In 'ideological' bias, well, we will know to which party they are biased and in 'monetary' bias we would know the truth as the media publish the content and support whoever pays them more.
The main problem here is media business is soley run on the bottomline of viewrship and TRP ratings(which are necessary to them for pricing ads rates) rather than content driven which is 'truth' and whole objective is diluted.
we see major private channels boasting maximum viewership on the day of Mumbai attacks on their channels! Pity..

@Pravin Thanks for your comments. PPP is surely not required if DD can get its act right on its own. PPP might help create funding options if the Govt. is not willing to chip in.

I think that media (and its associated eco-system) thrives in the extreme. News first. Now sports. What next?