Paid content...a basic opinion after sitting in too many meetings.

This argument will rumble on, but it's something people are always interested in talking about...or more likely, arguing about. A normal conversation on the subject can be reduced to something akin to a mildly contentious forum topic on the BBC's HYS within seconds. 1 minute in there will be a sense of mild threat and right-wing babble. 2 minutes in, someone will probably mention Hitler (or Murdoch depending on their knowledge of media ownership Vs knee-jerk-popular-culture-references ).

The arguments are cyclical and ultimately pointless as the media landscape changes so quickly that the concept of basic paid content will probably be defunct come 2011. What amazes me however is how, suddenly, publishers have thought "hang on a second...we could charge for that" bearing in mind their ONLY job is to profit from content (the moral guardianship argument died many years ago). The other thing that I stare at in disbelief is: as companies whose sole reason for existence is to make profit (I'm excluding the BBC here - that is a whole different discussion that could fill entire novels), and understand the principles of making profit via product (hint: you add value to something then sell it) they seem intent on charging for basic recycled news from the wires. News is almost worthless - you wouldn't dare buy shares in it. It's worth a million the second it arrives, then devalues to zero within the next minute, and the nature of news is that it spreads quickly. That's the point of it. No one owns it. It just happens. People talk about it (and the more people talk about it the more it devalues).

Now...take that news, add comment and analysis, figures, facts and research...and you've added value. Now you can sell it. If you're a TV network, show it all for free, then sell it via iTunes if people want to watch it when they want or in see it in 720p HD.

The FT is a classic example of a publisher that adds value to their content. Finance figures and facts are dry and need to be analysed, so you analyse them. And as if by magic...you've added value, and you can sell it. And they have sold this feature content, and they've made profit from it. The paper looks good, has little competition (due to it's niche editorial policy) and the website works well and does what it should. I can't comment about the quality of the content they sell - finance bewilders me - but I can reflect on their seemingly rude financial health when compared to others.

I'll cut it short here as I'm boring myself - you can probably see my view. To cut to a conclusion: I won't be paying to read my 'breaking' news from The Sun website, and I didn't mention Hitler arguing why.

Above: The mythical semi-paywall...and my weird need to read Tyler Brule's strangely addictive 'Fast Lane' column exposed in one image.