Deal or No Deal?

How often have you popped into Tesco’s and been seduced by ‘buy 1 get 1 free offers?’ Or eaten at a restaurant purely because theres a 2 for 1 meal deal on? Or justified countless purchases because something was in the sale and just too good an offer to walk away from?

Everyone loves a good deal. We like a bargain and we love getting things for free if we can.

On the other hand, no one likes to be ripped off. We don’t like things to be overpriced and we hate to pay for things which are ordinarily free.

‘It’s just not natural’. This is the reason why Robert Andrew suggests paying for online news will not prove popular. As UK Editor of Paid Content, Robert’s job is to engage with, monitor and write about digital media news. But even he, whose career is ironically built online, questions whether publishers should charge for online news.

Extensive research over this debate suggests that most people would not pay for online news.
“Only 5% of readers would pay for online News”

Also KPMG found that 60% of people would rather sift through adverts than pay a charge to view articles.

In a previous blog I discussed Murdoch’s plans to defy the wishes of the masses and charge for online content as of next year. Whilst most people are irritated at his presumable greed to apprehend further wealth, Robert Andrew offers an alternative theory…

Perhaps Murdoch’s intentions are in fact to dissuade an online audience? Perhaps he believes that charging for online content will encourage more people to buy hard copies of his publications again?  I for one would certainly make more of an effort to buy a paper if I couldn’t access news for free online. 

If publishers want to charge their readers for online content, then they have to remember who their audience are. They are people who want a good deal.  If we are paying for online news then we want to be offered something unique that can’t be found on other news websites.  We like discounts and we love getting things for free.

PCUK Harris Poll - Paid Content Response to free/discount paper offering

Robert Andrew suggests we need a ‘new model’, so journalists earn money for their articles and we as viewers aren’t forced to pay for what we have so far enjoyed for free. Can such a model exist? Only time, improved advertisement rates and recovery from the recession will tell? It will certainly be interesting to see how Murdoch’s strategy plays out next year.

PS – If you are interested in brilliant deals – check out ex-Cardiff Journalism student, Martin Lewis’ website

Combating Climate Change requires a Significant Cultural Shift

“Are you profoundly concerned about climate change? No? Wow – you really should be!” These were the words of Mark Brayne, a reporter turned psychotherapist who believes issues surrounding climate change will be dominating news stories over the next 10 years. A dribble of hands punched the air in agreement and I’m ashamed to say that mine didn’t join the minority.

Why? Well – along with the majority of people in the room, I guess I can’t really comprehend how catastrophic climate change/global warming will really be. It’s not a tangible thing that affects me or has any immediate impact on my life. Naive, ignorant, careless you may think? Yes, maybe. Probably definitely!

But I’m not alone by a long way. See Cardiff school of psychology – where a report shows most people believe climate change will not affect them.

During a visit to Cardiff County Council this week, the issue of climate change was hotly debated ahead of the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit. Ralph Cook, Leader of the Labour Group, argued that an individual effort to reduce CO2 emissions would be negligible seeing as one city in China emits more CO2 in one day than the UK does in one year. These are hefty statistics and it does make me question, can turning electrical appliances off, re-using carrier bags and cycling and walking everywhere really make that much of a difference?

A poignant message expressed by another councillor was that tackling these huge concerns is significantly dependant on a change in culture and attitudes. So many people are still swept up in striving for material success. The gas guzzling 4×4 car, 1st class travel and weekend city breaks are still very much associated with a glamorous and successful lifestyle. Someone possessing such a lavish way of life would be envied, not scalded for treading such a large carbon footprint.

I do understand that reacting to climate change is important and recycling, turning off lights, using public transport etc is the right and moral thing to do. However, I fear that the majority of people (myself included) will not appreciate the magnitude of climate change until we are faced with its devastating consequences.

Potential effects of climate change on London

Clear, Concise and Creative Communication

My blog has been somewhat neglected this week as things have been pretty hectic. We had our first production day on Monday.  As a reporter, I dashed around the streets of Cardiff, collecting vox pops, interviewing Doctors about Swine Flu, meeting the manager of Jamie Oliver’s first Italian restaurant in Wales and reeling back to the newsroom to edit audio, write scripts and record voicers – all in time to meet our hourly bulletin deadlines. 

We also produced our first 1 minute movie this week. Fun as it was to operate the Sony Z1 cameras and create our own short (and humorous- as we like to think) story, my course partner and I lost a fair few hours of our lives as we endeavoured to get to grips with Avid editing software.

Along with our regular Law and Public Administration lectures, we also had our dose of high calibre guests. On Tuesday Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC’s Technology correspondent came to talk to us. Although his lecture repeated much of what we have already heard so far this term – ‘its all about twitter twitter twitter’ he did offer some fresh perspectives on a journalist’s role.

He highlighted that as a journalist, you don’t necessarily have to be an expert on whatever you are reporting on. Your role is to be a communicator. To take a complicated concept or piece of information and report on it in such a way that the audience find it accessible and can understand it, or even better, enthuse about it. Rory himself does not profess to be a technological expert at all, despite it being his job. In fact, he spent most of his career with the BBC as a business and industry reporter.

For me, this opens several doors. It made me realise, I don’t have to study medicine to become a health correspondent, I don’t need to have been in the military to be a defence correspondent and I don’t need to have travelled the world in order to become a foreign correspondent. Of course I need to have a sound knowledge and interest as a journalist on any of the above subjects; but more importantly, I need to be insatiably curious, ask questions and ensure I have a well built network of contacts with the expertise to advise and inform me of the facts.

Fundamentally though, to be a credible journalist, I need to be able to communicate in a simple, clear and creative way. Rory underlined that not even the ever expanding online technologies or an extreme expertise will change the core skills of high-quality journalism and reporting.

Capturing Cardiff – A Red Perspective

It’s always refreshing to take a different perspective on things.  Our latest online lecture saw Daniel Meadows, a self-confessed hippy taking to the stage to inspire his avid audience to do just that.  An advocate in alternative story telling, Daniels photo-films create a fresh angle on how news can be presented or events recorded.

This weekend, I witnessed and took part in two momentous yet contrasting events in Cardiff.  On Saturday, the city was a sea of red as Welsh rugby fans flooded the streets and bars to support their team against the All Blacks.  On Sunday, red poppies were proudly pinned to every member of the sombre crowd that gathered to pay their respects in remembrance of those lives lost to conflict. 

As pictures speak louder than words, here are a few snaps from my red weekend.

A united strategy for Afghanistan?

The British and NATO presence in Afghanistan is becoming clouded with uncertainty and confusion.  It appears that the general public have not only lost track of the reasons we are in Afghanistan and how we need to achieve our mission there, but also want to know the exit strategy and a final date for departure.

The reason we are in Afghanistan is undoubtedly a very complex and multi-faceted one and I won’t attempt to explain this in my 400 word blog.  However, an evident concern is that everyone, including the Government, the MoD, ISAF, the UN, the British public and the United States are currently not pursuing a united political strategy or a comprehensive approach to the conflict.  We have committed almost 8 years and lost 230 British lives to this war.  Clearly, the key messages need constant repetition if the Government don’t want support to wane?

At present, opinions are divided between support and opposition for our commitment in Afghanistan.  Doubts have become all the more poignant after the recent deaths of 5 British soldiers at the hands of a rogue Afghan policeman.  Although the dedication and commitment of troops is unwavering, the nature of this recent attack has left a profound question mark over our strategy and presence in Helmand Province.  How are the Taliban infiltrating the police and Afghan Army despite rigorous vetting?  Should we cut and run as Kim Howells and other ministers suggest? 

Perhaps we should?  Is surrendering now really part of the British mindset?  Whilst deaths and injuries are tragic and hugely regrettable, Gordon Brown is adamant that Britain must not waver from its determination to succeed in Afghanistan.  Should we trust and heed to this mantra?  Should we put confidence in our military leaders, whose knowledge and expertise have confirmed our ability to succeed?  General Sir David Richards says the military mission is necessary to “protect our security” and is “winnable”. Does he have to say this anyway, even if he doesn’t think it?

UN Chief, Kai Eide said “currently there are more question marks and more doubt with regard to the strength of the international commitment to Afghanistan, which makes Obama’s decision about whether to send more troops even more difficult.’

However, Josh Arnold-Forster says, ‘to withdraw our troops now would be to betray the people of the region’.  Whilst troops are committed, surely we should remain united and proud of our British Forces, so those that are courageously fighting do so in the knowledge of their country’s support?

In my mind, support will only be achieved if Gordon Brown can conclusively prove that the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan are valid both from a national and an alliance perspective.  NATO also needs to ensure that it uses all the tools in the ‘comprehensive approach’ bag to get this campaign back on track.  However, once again, I can’t help but feel that all eyes are on the White House as we await America’s next move to dictate ours.

Press to Pay

I’m in two minds about paying for online content. On the one hand, the thought of paying for what has always been virtually free seems a ludicrous concept – and not one I am eager to embrace. On the other hand, it seems thoroughly unfair that journalists are expected to churn out articles that merit a price in one medium but are given away for free in another.

So is paying for online content ever likely to be a success?

Rupert Murdoch certainly thinks so. He has been advocating a shift in strategy for months and believes the public should be paying for their news online. “Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting”

But if you can access free and good quality news, why on earth would you pay for it elsewhere? A recent survey suggested that 9 out of 10 Briton’s would definitely not pay for news online. However people did say they would never pay for satellite TV, yet Sky has been a huge success. One major barrier for newspapers implementing payment for online news is the BBC. The British Broadcasting Corporation has created a notion that news should be free and newspapers simply can’t compete with such a service.

However, Adam Timworth, Head of blogging communication for Reed Business Information believes a compromise can be found. He says it’s important for websites/online news sites to span both a private and public audience. The private content, which is hidden from general consumption, is where the website makes its money through subscriptions. This has been particularly successful in Business and Trade news where in depth information on a niche subject is provided. However, it is essential that websites also offer a platform to engage with a wider audience. Maintaining a flowing conversation with their readers can be achieved through forums and comment/opinion sections. A further layer to this communication can be developed through the distribution of free forums such as blogs or wikis.

It seems to me that print media are caught in a catch 22. If they charge for content online, they will alienate their readers who will opt to consume news for free elsewhere. But if they don’t charge, their steady decline is likely to continue as no profits are made. However, one inexorable constant remains; the pubic demand for news and information means there is plenty of work for journalists to embrace.  However, is generating frequent and good quality journalism realistically sustainable without the funds to do so?  If a journalist is not paid for their work, does that mean anyone who puts pen to paper or consistently writes a blog is deemed a journalist too?  A journalist is paid for writing with credibility, revealing the truth and backing news stories up with researched facts - this is their job, this is how they earn their living.  Could free online news eventually leave journalists penniless?