• The busiest pre-Christmas online shopping day (‘Cyber Monday’) was a week later this year compared to last year;

• But even this paled into insignificance compared to the busiest online shopping days of the year – Boxing Day and 27 December;

• It’s not simply that online retailers profiting at the expense of bricks-and-mortar stores. The last 18 months have seen ‘multi-outlet’ stores such as M&S, John Lewis and Argos slowly gaining online market share from online-only retailers;

• There is continued evidence that people are using the internet to do their browsing but making purchases on the high street. This is particularly the case with the post-Christmas sales.

• Social media is increasingly driving people to online retail sites. It has now overtaken email as a referral source, although it continues to lag way behind Google and other search engines;

• Christmas presents drive online traffic – traffic to iTunes surged as people opened their new iPhones and iPods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8448389.stm

The journalism industry should hope, however, that a series of tipping points, or plateaus, are reached, that see consumers decide whether to plow on, remain consistent, or even turn back.

For example, yes, in the short-term, free content via large organisations will lead to a dilution of quality as those organisations cannot afford to pay enough journalists, leading to a work overload. A point will be reached that will be reflected on after the event as a “zenith” of sorts (which perhaps we are seeing today…The Telegraph expenses investigation, perhaps?), after which time, the curve of quality in journalism may begin a downward spiral.

So paid-for content on a mass scale may become a reality. At which point, it will vie with localised, free news content. Again, one will out perform the other, and reach it’s independent zenith…and then? That depends on what doors technology has opend for us.

At risk of becoming one of those inveterate gamblers mentioned by Mat Davies, I’d hope that consumers find it difficult to turn their back on the printed page, at least not to the extent that they are put out of business, purely because it’s a far more pleasureable experience to read a newspaper than a screen.

Plus, looking at the diagram at the top of the page, I’d much rather take a step backwards and become the middle-man – look at him, a fine specimen, hunting out news with his spear of truth – than follow the course of technological progress to become the hunched office rat on the right.

The future will decide, but what way it will go? There’ll always be room for quality – always. In which case traditional journalism training from a fouth-estate basis will continue to hold value. How people consume it will be down to the Googles, the News Corps, and the Microsofts of this world.

In the mean time, the natural order will weed out those lacking quality. It’ll be hard for journos to accept, and even harder for them to survive. And that’s without factoring in the evil clutches of class based nepotism that so dominates the scene in big cities.

So if you want to eat, journos, better put the work in – or learn to use that spear…

I’m a writer who has sadly appeared on the scene at a time when no one wants to pay writers, but I have been lucky enough to have had some very good praise. I’ve begun to joke that one day I’ll be the most loved unpaid waffler around. Of course the reality is that while I’m more than happy to pay my dues for an unreasonably long amount of time, one day I will need to earn money from this or I’ll have to stop putting nearly full time hours into the effort. This is a reality. Each writer has their own gift to provide and their own audience who will come to rely on them. It is imperative that we work towards a system where those who can provide quality content can receive at least basic living costs from it, otherwise they will go. I am no expert in technology and although I try to keep up with the big question facing us today, I don’t know what the answer is. What I do know is that if newspapers and websites don’t get paid for their content then I won’t get paid for mine, and then I will eventually be forced to stop writing. I’m just me but there are thousands more important examples to be considered.

Secondly I want to say that no matter what, I think we need to also fight to preserve the printed press. Call it instinct, paranoia or sentimentality, but I am uncomfortable with getting too complacent with all things electronic. The internet is my bosom friend and I feel heart palpitations just thinking of life without it but the pragmatist in me objects to a trend which puts all our eggs in one basket. I agree with Mat Davies that we can’t predict how things will end up, but there are certainly many precedents for solid trades vanishing from our collective consciousness. The printed press has given us civilisation. Technology is still wet behind the ears and dependent on a chain of cooperating institutions. By all means embrace it and even use it as Alpha but not to the exclusion of all else.

When it comes to newspapers, it’s long been my contention that I don’t give a damn about them or, more pointedly, the companies that run them. What I do care about is the writers. Demand for news and information has risen with ever-more comprehensive communications, and I think it would be a shame – for everyone – if we were to lose too many of them (in fact, there are already large numbers that have retrained).

Consequently, I am interested in looking at ways we can retain writing skills even if traditional employers fall by the wayside. What you say about opportunities and threats at the same time is true. New technology allows journalists to produce output to the same standard as far larger organisations (provided the resources and skills are available), and this could mean a real future for journalism, and one where the people who work to produce the news are the ones who reap the financial benefits, although this is hardly likely to make any of them millionaires. But that doesn’t matter, because local journalists have a far better understanding of the issues that matter to the people they serve, and they have a far clearer understanding of community responsibility. It’s win-win.

However – and I make this clear that it may not happen for some time, perhaps not even in my lifetime – aggregation has to be a concern for those who want fresh news. Finding stories takes time and expertise, both of which cost. If people continue to expect their news for free, then who is prepared to work for free to produce it? Yes, you can stick you head in the sand and say it’s not your problem (as people have done when I’ve discussed this before, but one of these days, it could be everybody’s problem.

I don’t see this as an end-of-the-world issue. But if many of us become involved in the debate over aggregation, we should find solutions quicker. After all, do you want to leave it to Rupert Murdoch to resolve?

Central to this debate as you rightly point out, is the way in which society consumes information and wants to consume information. A cursory look back through the history books and you can find reams of panic stricken invective about how television was going to be sound the death knell of newspapers; likewise, how it would kill cinema etc etc. The simple fact of the matter, to quote William Goldman, is that nobody knows anything. We are moving so quickly and developing technology at such a rapid pace that only fools an/or inveterate gamblers should predict where this is going to end up.