Maybe you had it right to begin with – Hollywood. But actors, not crew. An elite one percent – the stars – will make loads of cash. Another nine percent with connections will get jobs here and there and somehow make enough to pay the mortgage. The other 90 percent will wait tables and hope for the big break. Until they get tired. Then they will either retrain, or go to work in a totally different field, or put their journalism skills into public relations – once the tsunami of resumes from unemployed journalists begins to dissipate, that is.

I don’t really know you, Paul, but I suspect only you and a few other bloggers and professors are in that top 10 percent, being paid for consulting or teaching. Almost everyone I know is in trouble. I know a guy with a master’s degree in journalism and English and 15 years experience at a newspaper, some of that as an editor. He is now driving limos.

Sure, things may work out eventually if you’re young enough to survive the current turmoil OR if you have excellent connections. The top ten percent, in other words. But things have always worked out well for the top ten percent, haven’t they? I too am optimistic – for the people at the top.

Perhaps the difference is that you’re looking at the issue as an abstract, because you have already, in a sense, moved on. I’m surrounded by the carnage, both past and future. So I see things differently.

It’s an interesting analogy, but I don’t think it holds up. Shoe repair is a commodity business with low differentiation and a mature business model. Journalism is a highly differentiated business with a business model that is still evolving.

The business is being disrupted on two fronts: barriers to entry have fallen and the traditional business model is no longer very effective. That means that journalists have to redefine their value based upon differentiation because they can no longer keep newcomers out.

The business model has a lot of room for innovation. Shoe repair professionals basically make their money one way. Journalists have more options. There’s book writing, speaking, consulting, training, corporate projects, advertising and even commissioned sales. Many of these avenues have not been explored because the advertising model has traditionally worked so well.

I like the analogy of hairdressing better. That industry supports successful businesses that deliver service at a budget price on a mass-market basis. It also supports businesses that deliver a highly differentiated product at a premium price. The barriers to entry are somewhat higher, but that’s not a significant obstacle to new competitors.

Journalism will probably evolve more along the lines of hairdressing than shoe repair. There will be a layer of businesses that deliver a commodity service and a layer that provide a highly customized service at a premium price. We’ve only begun to experiment with alternative business models, too.

New business models are always being invented. If you listen to the Churchill Club podcast I referenced above, the people on the panel are all making money by giving away a service for free. They’ve come up with some very innovative ways to monetize their business. Journalists will do that too.

There’s no question that we’re in for some tough sledding as this industry reinvents itself and that there will be considerably more risk and pressure in the future. But that doesn’t mean the business will go away or that people won’t be able to make a good living practicing journalism. I’m fundamentally optimistic.

That’s how I’m doing it anyway. Isn’t that they way everyone is sort of headed? I’m surely not the guy with “The Answer” am I?

Furthermore, with every TV sold, you got free shoe-fixing equipment. Shoe-fixing became so popular, there were conventions during which shoe-fixers would tell funny anecdotes and exchange ideas on the best ways to fix shoes and the future of this exciting pastime.

Every other household has a sign out front that says: “Will fix shoes for free.” Remember, they LOVE to fix shoes. They’ll probably get tips now and then, but nothing like a living wage.

The guy who hangs out a shingle that says, “Will fix shoes for $50,000 a year” has a long wait on his hands. “But I fix shoes much better than anyone else,” he might say, if anyone was listening.

Most likely the only guy making a living wage under these circumstances is the warehouse manager who stocks shoe-fixing equipment and the guy shipping the equipment from China.

I realize this is not a perfect analogy, but if someone has a better one, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

The business model that has supported journalism to this point is horribly inefficient and a combination of technology and market forces is wringing a lot of that inefficiency out of the process. That’s painful, but it’s overly pessimistic to believe that journalism will have no market value in the future. Maybe the market value won’t be as high as it is now, and maybe fewer people will make their livings as full-time journalists, but there will be a market for quality work. It just won’t look anything like the structures we have today. It will be a whole lot more efficient, for one thing.

If you fundamentally reject that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, then my scenario makes no sense. I’m not that pessimistic, however.

No, that’s the way things work in Hollywood, which has – as msbpodcast pointed out – unions. Not to mention an industry that’s profitable.

These days journalism skills are viewed as widespread and cheap, and I suspect that’s because they are. I speak as one of the lucky few who gets paid to blog, but what I make covers my cable bill and little else.

I know a free-lance writer with a degree from one of the top j-schools in the country. A few years ago she would not even turn on her computer for less than $100. Now, a buck will suffice.

I wish you were right, though.

They all tend to be formed from lumps of ignorance.

I regret to inform you that people neither know nor care that much about the guts of the things they use.

Apart from first adopters, nobody cares about the intricacies, the details.

That’s why automobiles have automatic transmissions.

Written by somebody who doesn’t seem to know about the various unions and guilds who can bring everything to a halt, and occasionally have to.

Toss out the Hollywood analogy.

What else doesn’t make any sense in the article?