When Were They Going to Tell?

Every now and then I find myself getting angry because for years publishers said, "We have to go cheap on the web because we're not making money yet. When we do, we can pay more. Hope you understand." But consider what many signs are telling you. Rupert Murdoch is someone disliked by many journalists, and he has his own agendas, but I've never heard anyone call him a stupid businessman. He's planning to make the Wall Street Journal free online. Why? Because he'll make more than the revenue from the estimated 1 million subscribers - which, given the subscription rates, has got to be at least $50 million a year.

Read that number again. And he expects to get far bigger audiences to make far more money.

When I wrote about questions I had on newspaper readership, it was clear from the numbers in the Newspaper Association of America-sponsored report I cited that newspapers are getting millions of visitors a month. I still think that in the long run they are not going to be monetarily valuable clients for freelancers, but how much are each of those people worth in annual advertising revenue?

And if you look at this Mediaweek article, Time Inc. apparently has been doing very well on the web:

John Squires, executive vp, Time Inc., said that while he’d like the company’s sites to “crawl up in terms of scale,” he’s happy with their rank in engagement and revenue per user. Speaking today at a Time Inc. Digital Showcase, he noted that according to Time Inc.’s own ranking, the company’s sites come in 15th among media companies in terms of time spent per visitor.

Happy with revenue per user? To me, that generally means that someone is making a good amount of money. Newspapers and magazines see pretty serious revenue from the web. So when were the publishers going to admit it to the writers?

Never. They don't want to pay more. They're very happy to have driven down the cost of content, because that means they have higher margins, which are the difference between what products and services sell for, and what they cost to produce or acquire. And I suspect they're not telling the editors, either. Why? Because right now the editors for online work are also making less than their print colleagues - which is also fine with the publishers, because that pushes margins up even higher.

That's what gets me angry - the con game. Just when were writers supposed to be able to redeem the promise of more pay for concessions made? Again, the answer is one word: never. I do understand the publishers, but don't like what I often hear, and I'm not going to buy the line anymore.