Short Essay 1 --- Liu Xinyi

This article caught my attention: the study “Innovations in new revenue streams for digital media: journalism as a customer relationship” by Jens Barland. It's a very interesting article on how the Schibsted Media Group is adapting smartly to the digital world. It's a clever core idea - engage people with news and offer other services - but it really shows how media companies can tackle some of the daunting challenges of the digital age. But the more I think about it, the more I realize there are three major areas of concern: the paradigm shift in the concept of the “two-sided marketplace,” the ethical tightrope between news and advertising, and the implications of all this for the future of journalism.

Most strikingly, Schibsted has moved beyond the old idea of a “two-sided market” where there are only readers and advertisers. What they're doing is far more complex: using news to attract readers and then using that audience to sell everything from classified ads to dating apps. It's no longer just about selling ad space; it's about becoming a direct service provider. It's a brilliant business strategy, especially today when traditional advertising revenues are so unpredictable. the examples of VG and Aftonbladet magazine bring this strategy to life, demonstrating both the potential and the difficulties. It's a model that other media companies can learn from, but it's definitely not a one-size-fits-all solution. You have to really think about your specific audience and what kind of service will make your customers happy.

However, this clever business model also raises some very serious ethical questions. The line between hard news reporting and promoting other services becomes very blurred. It's a delicate balance. It makes me wonder: are readers fully aware that some of what they are reading is subtly inducing them to buy something? How do you ensure that the profit motive doesn't accidentally influence what and how the news is reported? Ethically, it's a tightrope that no one can walk.

More broadly, what does this mean for the future of journalism? Is this what the future of journalism will look like? As a means of generating revenue in a digital world, it's great, but it's also fraught with danger. By focusing primarily on attracting and converting customers, rather than quality independent journalism, we could be looking at less investigative reporting, more sensationalism, and even a bias towards stories that promote affiliated services. To me, this sounds like a very worrying outcome. We have to find ways to balance commercial success with journalism's important contributions to healthy social life: informing the public, holding power accountable, and telling stories that matter, whether they sell or not.

Barland's paper is a good starting point for this discussion. It highlights some genuinely innovative strategies, but also leaves us with important questions about the future of journalism in the digital age - questions that require further in-depth discussion and research.