I can understand when a pre-teen thinks that the price of some product should be calculated by an equation that includes the cost of making it plus a small profit. I can’t understand when a grown man falls for the same blunder.

The price of something is set by the willingness of the consumer to pay. The consumer doesn’t give a whiff what it cost the manufacterer to make the thing. (It cost just as much to make the CD that’s languishing in the dollar bin as it cost to make the best-seller that’s $20.)

Newspapermen seem to think that consumers care about their cost of production. I think they’ve been attending too many union meetings.

For example, listen to this.

Gathering news costs money, sometimes a great deal of it. Mr Brown presumably does not expect Marks & Spencer to give away its clothes and food, so I’m not therefore sure why he thinks newspapers should give away their journalism.

(Source: Stephen Glover: The future of the free press will rest on Murdoch making us pay.)

I suppose that gathering perfectly round pebbles exactly 2mm in diameter is costly as well. So what? The relevant question is whether people are willing to pay for it.

The thing is, I agree with Rupert Murdoch that “free” isn’t a sustainable business model for newspapers. But I don’t believe paywalls are the answer. There are other ways to monetize content. (In fact, I believe that will be the subject of my next post.)