{"id":653179,"date":"2013-04-18T13:38:16","date_gmt":"2013-04-18T17:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paidcontent.org\/?p=227970"},"modified":"2013-04-18T13:38:16","modified_gmt":"2013-04-18T17:38:16","slug":"takeaways-from-paidcontent-live-paywalls-sponsored-content-and-massive-disruption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/653179","title":{"rendered":"Takeaways from paidContent Live: Paywalls, sponsored content and massive disruption"},"content":{"rendered":"

The world of media is being disrupted at an even faster rate than ever, it seems \u2014 both the content side and the advertising side \u2014 and our paidContent Live conference<\/a> in New York on Wednesday was full of fascinating viewpoints and analysis from some of the writers, publishers, startups and investors who are playing key roles in that disruption. From the book industry<\/a> to news and journalism to cable television, business models are being exploded by new entrants and new technologies, and while that causes destruction in some parts of the media industry, it also creates opportunity as well.<\/p>\n

There was much talk about both aspects of this ongoing evolution at the conference, from people like star blogger Andrew Sullivan and Tumblr founder David Karp<\/a> to investor Ken Lerer and Guardian<\/em> editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger. What follows are just some of the key lessons or moments that struck me as significant during the show (you can also read our live coverage<\/a> of each session and watch livestreams of each panel<\/a> as well).<\/p>\n

Paywalls vs. open journalism:<\/h2>\n

During my interview with him<\/a>, one of the key points that Guardian<\/em> editor Alan Rusbridger made was that there is a very clear tension between the efforts by an increasing number of newspapers to erect paywalls \u2014 in order to bolster their revenue \u2014 and the philosophical approach to journalism that sees openness and interactivity with readers as a cornerstone of what journalism has become. As Rusbridger put it:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt is journalism that wants a response. It is journalism that is itself responsive. It is journalism that doesn\u2019t just sit on the web as though it has no connection with the web, that acknowledges that the web is the most extraordinary revolution in publishing where lots of people will be publishing extremely worthwhile and informative information. And so you can produce better things by not ignoring it or building a barrier between yourself and that but incorporating it and linking to it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"paidContent<\/a><\/p>\n

The many different flavors of paywall:<\/h2>\n

Much of the discussion that took place on the monetization panel \u2014 which featured Dick Tofel of ProPublica, Justin Smith of Atlantic Media, Raju Narisetti of News Corp. and Bob Bowman of Major League Baseball \u2014 was about the myriad ways in which media companies can charge for their content. Bowman argued that every media company should be charging its users, even if it is through some kind of \u201cpro\u201d version, and Smith announced that The Atlantic<\/em> will soon be launching a content offering<\/a> related to the magazine that will be subscription only, although he didn\u2019t say what kind of content it would be. <\/p>\n

Narisetti also talked a bit about his vision of a \u201creverse paywall,\u201d which focuses more on membership benefits that readers could accumulate based on their engagement with a site \u2014 although Bowman said he thought this would just encourage readers to click on ads or perform other tasks in order to get something for free, and that advertisers would quickly see through this gaming and not be interested in advertising around it. Smith also pointed out that The Atlantic<\/em>\u2018s event business produces a lot of revenue for the company, and therefore decreases the need for a strict paywall.<\/p>\n

No one can agree on sponsored content:<\/h2>\n

On the panel that focused on the increasingly blurry line between editorial content and advertising, Felix Salmon of Reuters challenged Jon Steinberg of BuzzFeed, Kyle Monson of Knock Twice and Forbes<\/em> chief operating officer Lewis D\u2019Vorkin to define their terms \u2014 but the panelists spent most of their time debating whether \u201cnative advertising\u201d of all kinds is inherently unethical<\/a> or duplicitous in some way (the view held by Andrew Sullivan, who has railed against the phenomenon).<\/p>\n

Steinberg maintained that the conventional wisdom that says average readers are confused \u2014 and in some sense misled \u2014 by sponsored content is hogwash, and that this is essentially a lie perpetrated by traditional media entities who continue to rely on banner advertising for their revenue. According to the BuzzFeed president, banner ads are a dying medium, and some form of sponsored content is the only real alternative. Monson, however, argued that if native advertising becomes too ubiquitous, readers will begin to ignore it the same way they currently ignore every other form of advertising.<\/p>\n

Independence is a doubled-edged sword:<\/h2>\n
\"paidContent<\/a><\/p>\n

(L to R:) Andrew Sullivan, Editor, The Dish; Andrew Ross Sorkin, Columnist, NYT; Maria Popova, Writer, Brain Pickings; Tim Ferriss, Author, The 4-Hour Workweek paidContent Live 2013 Albert Chau \/ itsmebert.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

One of the highlights of the conference for many (including me) was a panel composed of superstar bloggers and authors<\/a> Andrew Sullivan, Maria Popova, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Tim Ferris. Sullivan has famously bet his livelihood on going direct to his readers for financial support \u2014 although he maintained that he is not anti-advertising, as some have assumed. He said he is dedicated to that approach even to the point of not taking a salary until he can prove that the model works, and that he values his independence and his direct relationship with readers over the comfort of working for a large media entity.<\/p>\n

Andrew Ross Sorkin, by contrast, has been able to build a fairly large team and business model for himself inside the New York Times<\/em> \u2014 even though he could probably (or theoretically) have created something similar, and more independent, on his own. Sorkin said that his interest in remaining inside a large media entity stems in part from the resources it puts at his disposal, and partly from his commitment to the brand itself, since the paper took a large bet on him years ago when he created DealBook.<\/p>\n

There was a lot more to the conference that I haven\u2019t even touched on here \u2014 including a startup showcase<\/a> featuring new platforms like Circa and Branch, a panel<\/a> on the use of algorith-driven personalization with Mark Johnson of Zite and Aria Haghighi of Prismatic, a great look at the future of books<\/a> with Dominique Raccah of Sourcebooks and Evan Ratliffe of Atavist, a discussion between Om and John Borthwick of Betaworks<\/a>, and an interview with the architect<\/a> of Aereo\u2019s ongoing disruption of cable.<\/p>\n

Thanks to all those who attended and to all of our speakers as well.<\/p>\n

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Albert Chau<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:<\/strong>
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n