To Outlets I’m a Cheapskate
This is a story about how I’m reluctant to spend on media. Money that is. They can have my eyeballs.
With so much free content available online, paying for journalism feels like flushing cash down the drain. My limited Millennial income is better spent on a pint of craft beer. (Full disclosure: I maintain a Rolling Stone subscription because of the auto renewal process, not due to my appreciation of New Journalism).
The truth is that I’m only willing to pay for content if it’s through ceding attention to publishers. I’m happy to let outlets gather the data they want/need about me. I have no ad-blockers, I’ve never cleaned my cookies, I occasionally click on banner ads, and I seldom skip videos that pop across the screen, blocking the view to what I actually want to see.
In fact, I support data gathering by publishers. Let me explain: the more data they have on my online navigation preferences, the better they can curate stories to my taste. It’s a tradeoff that I’m willing to make. I give up on a little privacy to have access to material that the ethereal algorithm calculates I’m going to appreciate.
I sincerely believe all of that and it just so happens that if I practiced what I preach, I’d be an almost perfect internet-era media consumer. To my surprise, however, publishers are making almost no money off of my browsing habits. I rarely use the computer to access the news. I only read Rolling Stone when taken over by guilt of not holding paper in my hands anymore. I don’t own a tablet. And I don’t subscribe to cable.
How am I contributing to the communications industry, the same one I want to work in? The only revenue that I generate for content creators is my thumbing through morning newsletters and apps, and the time I spend listening to Southern California’s KPCC — and that’s probably only because LA has inhumane traffic.
My media consumption habits over the course of 48 hours made clear that I generate little revenue for media companies. In the morning, the first thing I do after turning off my phone’s alarm is browse through The Economist’s Espresso — with a friend’s login information — and quickly skip the Santander ad. Then it’s time to open USA Today to get a quick read of the “5 Things You Need to Know Today” and breeze through the banners on the application. After that it’s Smart News and Apple News’ curated content, which, optimized for mobile, carry no ads. Lastly, while having breakfast, I listen to The Rachel Maddow Show podcast, the previous night’s episode with commercial breaks edited out. When I get to my car it’s National Public Radio until I reach my destination. After the day has started, it’s only peppered with the sporadic breaking news notification that hardly gets opened. The ritual restarts the following morning.
Ultimately, I understand that I’m still “paying” for content. I recall the Santander commercial on the Economist, plus the magazine knows the articles I read and the ones I don’t — it also my friend’s monthly subscription fee. The USA Today has my phone number, my location, my click history and a few cents of more expensive mobile CPM for the banners I see. I confess that I don’t understand Smart News, Apple News and Rachel Maddow’s business model, but I’m a loyal customer, as is the case with KPCC, even though I don’t donate. I guess the only outlet that guilts me into engaging with it is Rolling Stone and it’s not even because of the money.
