The World of Free and The Huffington Post

There has been a heated debate this week about free information, starting with Malcolm Gladwell's review of Chris Anderson's book Free, in which Gladwell argues that free "fuel" plus costly "infrastructure" results in net losses for companies like YouTube, which will lose a half a billion dollars in 2009, continuing with Seth Godin's assertion that free is the future, whether we like it or not, and eventually splintering into a whole bunch of blogs and comments about the benefits and perils of free content.

As someone who feels that free has led to the democratization of media (and that this is a good thing), I see free content more as the ability to borrow books from a library than the ability to steal them from a bookstore. Not only am I in favor of the idea of free, I'm also in favor of what free does to the process of acquiring content. In the digital world, paying for things involves entering your name, address, credit card information and email into an online form, even if what you're purchasing costs 10 cents. So whereas in a paid content world if you're a gay kid in a conservative town and you want to read about New York's Pride parade on The Huffington Post, you have to borrow a credit card from your parents to do so, in a free content world, everyone has free and anonymous access to that information. And everyone can provide it.

Perhaps this is why I so often find myself defending The Huffington Post and its "prototype for the future of journalism." They're one of the few media outlets that will let me write for them. Before I submitted my recent article, "A Business Model for Journalism Where Writers Get Paid" to The Huffington Post, I pitched it to the following paying online and print newspapers and magazines:

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
USA Today
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Record
The Chicago Sun-Times
The Boston Globe
New York Magazine
Slate

All of them said no.

To date, the article on The Huffington Post has received 30 comments and 20 tweets, and David Carr, a staff New York Times reporter, referred to it later that week in the Times' Business section.

I read The New York Times. I value The New York Times. But it is very difficult for me to muster sympathy for the financial woes of a newspaper that refuses to let any new members into its elitist little club.

Here is an email someone from NYTimes.com sent me in December 2008 after she had repeatedly rejected my pitches to the City Room blog:

"Thanks for this pitch -- and for the other you submitted recently. I spoke to my editor and though he's intrigued by the idea, we're not looking for any new contributors, paid or unpaid, from the outside."

Paid or unpaid! Meaning that I shouldn't even think about writing for The New York Times' blog for free. It's like an elderly man refusing my help crossing the street because I'm wearing trousers. And while the Times is stubbornly and stodgily manning the gates of the fancy Midtown office building it can't afford, the ever approachable Huffington Post is churning out content and swimming in advertising dollars in its small nondescript workspace downtown.

I'm not arguing that New York Times writers should write for free. To the contrary, I think The Huffington Post should start paying its writers immediately before it becomes, if it hasn't already, a blog for wealthy people who have the financial luxury of writing without getting paid. And even if they wanted to, professional journalists covering current events couldn't write for free for logistical reasons. Someone has to cover the airfare to Afghanistan, for example.

However, what The Huffington Post has done extremely well is say, "Yes." When 11 other publications said "no" (and those were just the ones I could remember), I simply logged into The Huffington Post, submitted my article, and joined the conversation. Blogs linked to it. The New York Times referred to it. If it weren't for the Huffington Post and its inclusive policy, a number of voices simply would not be heard. (And if it weren't for the Huffington Post's free content policy, fewer people would be around to hear them.)

Providing information is something people seem to want to do for free. Godin likens it to writing poetry: "When there are thousands of people writing about something, many will be willing to do it for free (like poets) and some of them might even be really good (like some poets). There is no poetry shortage." If someone volunteered to do your taxes for free you probably wouldn't continue paying your accountant. Then again, you still might prefer to pay an accountant who actually knows what she's doing.

Godin wrote, "People will pay for content if it is so unique they can't get it anywhere else, so fast they benefit from getting it before anyone else, or so related to their tribe that paying for it brings them closer to other people." The New York Times has always provided unique content, but these days the gate keeping makes it difficult to provide fast, relevant and ample content. If the Times allows more writers in now when all we know is that more content leads to more page views and more ad revenue, it might be in a better position later when the market inevitably and organically decides that some things are worth paying for.

Comments

[NeverFree]

"Huffington Post is churning out content and swimming in advertising dollars"
Of course they're swimming in ad dollars, THEY AREN'T PAYING ANYONE. How does it feel to know that the late night janitorial staff is getting paid while you're not. I guess they are of more value to The HP than you are. Or, are the janitors working for free also. No, they aren't. Because they know what they do has a value. Only artists, photographers (which I am, and not one who supports free), and writers are dumb enough to do what they do for free. Real business people (and make no mistake, you are a business) don't do anything for free. Even the guy who wrote the book about free didn't do it for free and absolutely charges for the book.

"Paid or unpaid! Meaning that I shouldn't even think about writing for The New York Times' blog for free. It's like an elderly man refusing my help crossing the street because I'm wearing trousers."

I'm sorry, but did you ever think they didn't hire you because they just didn't like your idea? You're suggesting that they should be thrilled to add you as a contributor because you're willing to do it for free... Well, as I said above, there are plenty of writers willing to do it for free. By your logic, they should be accepting all of them as well.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

I am glad you got published. This is a good article.

[Squaker]

My understanding is that most blogs, including this one are not able to pay most of their bloggers
So while they might be "swimming in advertising dollars" in your words, it obviously isn't enough

Relying too heavily on advertising dollars can also hurt the content
If this site ever decided to start doing things that really upset the corporate interests, they can force you to stop by not advertising here anymore.
That is why the best news sources, the ones that dig into controversial issues, both print and internet are mostly funded by donations, not advertising

[larry278]

How did CN Parkinson state the law about an orgnization that had opulent, impressive quarters & other facilities?

[Ohioan730]

I'm not sure if there's a way to democratize the news. Even if its free and on the web, there are still advertisements everywhere you click.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

News -- I don't care about fast. What I'll pay for is news that is investigative and impartial, that I can _trust_. We just got through seeing eight years of major "news" organizations taking every White House press release and sending it straight to typeset. If they're going to be lazy or cowardly, why should I pay them?

[johnsopinion]

I will say this in defence to what the Huffington Post DOES as opposed to what
it doesn't do, it does give readers a chance to respond to the blogs and opinion
pieces. One of its more popular features, I believe.
I don't think this will last because it didn't on YAHOO. And, I'm seeing the same
thing happening here.... responders getting into arguments with each other and
losing sight of the original piece.

State your case and move on!

When I tried to access my local newspapers web site, of which they were so proud
to have up and running, to read more than a paragraph of an interesting story, I was
asked to fill out a questionaire before being allowed to proceed to the full article.
They wanted to know my dob, income, education, religion, and things I don't tell
strangers.

I made up a questionaire for them as a reader of their paper and mailed it to the
proper department. THEY had to pass certain criteria before I would lower myself
to read their paper. Having a friend who worked for that paper I knew some 'inside'
information about them (i.e., advertising policies, distribution, etc.) that I questioned
them about. Needless to say, no one filled it out and returned it to me.
People too often lose sight of the original objective and a new label becomes the
new objective.

[johnsopinion]

"... Huffington Post is churning out content and swimming in advertising dollars
in its small nondescript workspace downtown."

I'm well aware of this. There are times when I have to wait 1, sometimes 2, sometimes
2 1/2 minutes for the advertising to load from .... wherever, on my 'high speed' always
connected Comcast fastest connection around to regain control of my sliding bars or
mouse. And once it loads, articles start jumping around all over the place. You click on
one headline and you get the article that replaced it in the last 'update jump.' That article
slid over there, this one dropped down to there and the one you wanted is now in
column three!

In the beginning, in a land far, far, away, there was a time when websites dictated to
advertisers that their ads must load within a specified time (thirty seconds or less, I
believe) or be banned from that website. Well, we see how long that lasted, didn't we?
Obviously, the advertising, aka money lobby, wins, even on The Huffington Post.

[RobinSeattle]

Use Firefox, get the script blocker widget and bam, you're good to go. No doubleclick or other dancing, annoying adware reaches your computer. Plus the site will load faster as a result. I am a Comcast customer, too, and HuffPo loads almost instantaneously for me.

Love Firefox and scriptblocker.