Sotto Voce.

Say you’re reading a book about the lives of inventors who toiled in their garages creating new pieces of technology that changed the world. You get to the end of the book, close it, and with a surge of confidence say out loud, “I could do that too! All I need is: …”

a) “… an idea!”
b) “… a garage!”
c) “… venture capital!”

Brilliant.

The money quote:

“The last time I was in Baghdad I didn’t see a Huffington Post bureau, or a Google bureau, or a Drudge Report bureau there. Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t going to be one. Because it’s expensive, because it’s dangerous. It’s a lot easier to stay home and riff on the work that somebody else does.”

Jason Jones’ joke at the end is pretty good too…

More and more, newspaper editors are deciding to stand up to free content the way fed-up parents eventually confront their freeloading kids who are hooked on venture capital allowance money — “Hey, it’s time to move out and get a job.”

It’s about freakin’ time. Of course, if the parents had worked up the courage to have that little chat before they’d sucked the family savings dry and hocked the house and the car to keep the kid happy, it might have made a difference. But I guess it’s better late than never.

And now TV — which has made the pay-for-content model so commonplace in our lives that free TV is about to disappear forever and the only complaints are about how to hook up the converter boxes — is turning on the tough love. News Corp.’s Chief Digital Officer (senior hologram?) was recently quoted as saying “ad-supported content doesn’t work,” which could mean that people may have to start paying for Hulu.

All well and good, but I have a question. What if ad-supported content really does work?

(*Rubs eyes with fists*) “WhaaaaAAAA????” (*Boggle*)

(more…)

In memory of the hoopiest frood in all the cosmos — Douglas Adams — and with eternal gratitude for his contributions to literature, today the universe celebrates Towel Day. So grab a towel and join the throngs of cosmic hitchhikers who are striving to appreciate the wonders of the universe on less than thirty Altarian dollars a day.

That evening it was dark early, which was normal for the time of year. It was cold and windy, which was normal.

It started to rain, which was particularly normal.

A spacecraft landed, which was not.

Douglas Adams is just this guy, you know?

We’re sure feeling the lurv here at Sotto Voce HQ. Our very own Senators, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, have respectively sponsored and co-sponsored a bill into the Senate proposing to amend section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include “certain newspapers” that are organized as nonprofits, an idea I endorsed on SV not too long ago.

The bill, S. 673, clearly answers my question about how a nonprofit newspaper organization would qualify as a nonprofit:

I see the potential for a big snag, though, in the proposed language for “Unrelated Business Income:”

That’s fudgy enough to cause problems in practice. What constitutes “exceeds?” A 50-50 split in column inches? Per page or overall? Will there be different text-to-ad ratios for news, sports, and articles because they don’t “weigh” the same in terms of fulfilling the newspaper’s educational purpose? What about print vs. online editions (a distinction not covered in the bill, BTW)?

Don’t doubt for a minute that people are going to haggle and parse those thinner than deli salmon. The so-called “mega-donors” who are likely to be the primary benefactors of nonprofit newspapers are 1) likely to reserve property interests in their gifts, allowing them to bring suit to enforce restrictions, and 2) can probably afford better lawyers than the nonprofit. What happens when a paper’s biggest donor finds out that it’s about to do an investigative series on a company on whose board he sits?

Oh, and by the way, is subscription revenue covered already in the existing Code? If not, shouldn’t that be Paragraph (l) after advertising revenue?

In any case, right now the bill is just sittin’ on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mikulski is the only co-sponsor, and I suspect that it will not emerge from the almighty Finance Committee (where the above issues could be haggled out) to see the light of a floor vote.

Regardless of the bill’s prima facie strengths and weaknesses, and also regardless of its ultimate fate, I think it’s an important first step. It would open up one more avenue for news organizations to try and make a go of it, and Sen. Cardin deserves big kudos for surveying the route. Senator, if you’re reading this, I’ll buy you a Boh and a bucket of crabs any time.

And in the meantime: newspapers, it probably wouldn’t kill you to start charging for online articles. Look at it this way: since you’re already giving everything away for free, from the moment you get one online subscriber, you’re already making money.

Or to put it another way: what else do you have to lose?