Scott Maxwell, a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel, has a very interesting post today about the change in business models for newspapers. Among other points, he boils the situation down to the following:

Personally, I think those in charge of business models at newspapers across the country screwed up years ago. They decided to give away everything we provide for free. So customers are left with two choices: 1) They can pay for a product that gets delivered to their door at a certain hour. 2) Or they can not pay for anything -- and go online to get most every single thing that was in the live paper, plus many more features, like this blog, at any moment they choose. And then we wonder why people choose the latter.

You can't really argue with Scott's logic about the way people consume their news. Jack Lail has a post along similar lines which leads us to believe that most people aren't getting their news from a newspaper anymore (according to Zogby's it's barely 12%. I was recently in a meeting with a prominent community leader who put this figure at 20% and told the audience to stop chasing 'the paper' for a story because no one's reading it anyway.

It reminds me of something I heard Michael Eisner, former Chairman of Disney, say at a time when Web distribution of entertainment was hitting a fever pitch. Basically, and I'm paraphrasing here, he indicated that his role was simply that of a talent aggregator. Consumers pay him to bring together writers, animators, actors, and production folks to produce great content. His Adam Smith-like warning was that if he doesn't get paid, he won't continue to do it.

It's no different in the newspaper business. Unless it develops a model to continue profiting from the aggregation of columnists and reporters, columnists and reporters will have to change and adapt. Matt Drudge, although in a sometimes questionable manner, has done so. We have also seen the onslaught of blog networks whereby writers get together to co-join blogs with the hope of sustaining.

I'm not suggesting that every reporter and columnist should be a blogger, because I don't think the economics necessarily work. But newspapers will certainly have to adapt by taking control of their strengths. Yeah, I can get the newspaper for free online...but I can't read it over coffee, take it on the plane, or clip something for someone in the same way. And, yes, I can go to ESPN.COM to check the score of the Magic game, but I can't read about the goings-on with the Orlando Magic Youth Foundation and the inner politics of getting the new arena built. Enough folks will pay the Orlando Sentinel to pay the Scott Maxwells of the world to help us understand the world around us. But the newspaper industry needs to continue to develop its proposition for doing so.