{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Newspapers are in trouble. Few dispute that. The question on the minds of industry participants and observers is simply: "How do we save them?"

In an effort to desperately find a new source of revenue for its members, the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) is making a bone-headed move: charging PR agencies for links to newspaper websites that they send to clients. 

It is nothing short of preposterous.

The NLA was formed in 1996 and represents 1,400 newspapers in the UK. Its purpose: to authorize and collect licensing fees for "paper and digital copying of press cuttings".

As the NLA sees it, a "press cutting" now includes a link to a newspaper website where content can be viewed for free. And it wants PR agencies to pay for sending such links. Not surprisingly, this has sparked ire among agencies.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has called the NLA's plan "absolute nonsense". Hector Proud of PR firm Idea Generation describes it as "a ham-fisted attempt to extract the largest amount of money from the softest target it can find". And Tim Downs of Brahm sees this as one of the "tenuous ways" the NLA is attempting "to protect its income".

They're all calling it for what it is: a shake-down.

Now I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of newspapers (and their representatives). I'm a staunch supporter of copyright and think that in many ways, publishers are slighted online. But the path the NLA is taking is not only dumb, but dangerous. The idea that sharing a link to newspaper content that is freely available on the web should result in compensation is quite absurd.

For its part, the NLA doesn't see anything wrong with what it's doing. Not surprising. "Our aim is to protect the rights of publishers and help the web monitoring market grow" is the official line. That's all fine and well but protecting the rights of publishers and charging PR firms for sending a link are two very different things.

At the end of the day, this debate comes down to the flawed business models most newspapers have adopted online. Here, Francis Ingham of the PRCA makes a very good point:

If the newspapers want to make their content available for free, and then live off the advertising revenue, then good luck to them. If they want to charge for web content, then –again-that’s their choice. But charging for links to publicly available, free material is utterly ridiculous.

Bingo! If a newspaper willingly makes its content freely available on the web and a PR agency sends a client a link to it, why should compensation be paid? There's no automated aggregation. There's no republishing of content.

Newspapers that freely choose to make their content available online can't have their cake and eat it too. If they're not happy earning a fraction of a cent every time somebody visits a page on their websites, they should charge for their content. Problem solved: PR agencies would have a legitimate reason to pay a licensing fee (eg. republication) or their clients would have good reason to subscribe to major newspaper websites (eg. so they can read articles they're sent links to).

The problem for the newspaper industry is that it has quite unwisely devalued its own content. It's now dealing with the consequences and unfortunately, the actions it's taking aren't getting any wiser.

Photo credit: fireflythegreat via Flickr.

Patricio Robles

Published 15 July, 2009 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2379 more posts from this author

Comments (3)

Avatar-blank-50x50

The Red Rocket

Every agency I've ever worked at has had the same view of the NLA and this development...? "Ham fisted" is taking it lightly. A complete mis-understanding of the way communications work nowadays. What about the whole blogosphere?

about 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Matt Barnes

This is the most absurd things I've heard in a while. I'll never understand how people got this idea that giving a link to a piece of content somehow benefits the link-provider at the expense of the content-provider. I'm also fuzzy on how exactly NLA plans to collect on these links.

about 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Thomas Atcheson

If Newspapers are so worried about copywrite, why do virtually all newspaper websites have an option to "click here and print"?

Surely it would be easy enough to protect the content rather than volunteer it for free.

PS When they editor puts in a press release verbatum, as often happens, surely I/my client has the copywrite anyway? It is my work and I did give permission for its publication.

about 7 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.