Even though I’m personally not a fan of free magazines, I would agree with you that free does not necessarily harm the paid contents. As for the press, both free and paid are equally visible, in different spots true, but still. Consumers are aware that both exist and chose one or the other according to the value they put in information and how it’s conveyed to them. It depends on many factors like social class, income, influences, etc….

I would thus give credit for the free press for making many French people (among others) read again! I will not comment on the quality of the news; but as in everything in life, you get what you pay for. What the decline of traditional press shows is that consumers are less interested in in-depth, true journalistic approach of news, but more interested in fast, crunchy news to buzz about. That’s more a society thing and free press just brought their little piece on that, they are not to blame, it’s what consumers want!

But the reproach I would make to your article, is that you could have done a more analytical approach to the “free business” overal.

Free is interesting if you have something interesting to provide to consumers, for free; that you can sustain it with an advertising model knowing that the consumers who are interested in your free offer, also interest advertisers. It’s not always the case. Free must also bring value to consumer (even if some of you could argue on that), otherwise it’s useless and will not lead to any sustainable business

But where free is dangerous, is when it floods a given business and makes the “premium, paid” business obscur; and where consumers are not left with a real choice. I doubt that 20 minutes can pay “grand reporters” to go to the other side of the planet for a month’s investigations for example.

The Apps business is in that case, especially Android Market. Free Apps are at least 60% of apps and even paid applications can be refunded the next day. As a consequence, most publishers (of games for example) don’t make zip on it and the portal is invaded with pirated contents, viruses, etc. so consumers no longer know how to get quality stuff.

Your post started really well, with a sentence “In itself, “Free” is not a business model, it is only a component of broader revenue system” that I find extremely pertinent! Could have been just a bit broader than the free press example.

@Sebastien_Givry

Thanks for your refreshing critics of C.Anderson’s “book”. Did it imply to use the word “Free” FORTY times when you actually mean “subsidized by ads”?(1) The only time you use “free” properly is when talking about wikipedia : even there, arent’ allegedly “free” wikipedia articles sometimes just another way to rewrite History to sbdy’s profit, cheaper than paying lobbyists (2) ?
I agree that press managers are probably as responsible for the newspaper current crisis as recorded music tycoons are when blaming “piracy” for their own fate. But, despite unpaid daily press like “20 minutes” proving that newspaper still have readers for years, it’s misleading to keep referring to “free” when you conclude that only hydrid can save us all.
We’re all caught back by our habits, aint’ it? it’s easier, quicker and more profitable tag-wise to use “free” every second line?

(1) example : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4695376.stm
(2) Funny enough, I sourced the lecture “two-faced markets : Internet where 90% of supposed free information is paid indirectly” from C.Anderson’s web portal.
http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Make_Money_Around_Free_Content

Except, I would rather read a “peace (piece) of crap” than questionnable comments for the upper class readership you seem to want to represent.

Maybe you should stop reading the Internet altogether, because it is almost entirely free.