Posts
As we've discussed in class, the future viability of the newspaper industry is in some doubt unless newspapers can charge for content online -- and readers will be willing to pay. Many print publications jumped on the Internet bandwagon more than a decade ago, eager to establish their online presence, sort of an "If you build it, they will come," approach. Readers came in droves, but often balk when papers try to charge for content.
As a consequence, most newspapers and many magazines give away content online that print subscribers and advertisers pay for. Online advertising revenues for most publications are a fraction of the revenues brought in by print advertising. Thus, many papers have more readers than ever before, but a problematic revenue base. That makes economic sustainability a real challenge.
How long can online readers reasonably expect to pay nothing for information that is costly to gather, write, edit? Think for a moment what it costs to pay for bureaus in places like Baghdad, Kabul, London, Paris -- even St. Paul.
Now come reports that The New York Times soon will announce its plans for a pay model. The Times tried in the past to charge for premium content, including columnists and crossword puzzles. It abandoned the practice. Only a very few papers have been able to charge for online subscriptions, most notably The Wall Street Journal. A bunch of big papers are considering a collaborative pay model called Journalism Online.
What do you think? What would you be willing to pay?
I think the solution would be to charge more for online advertising.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understand, only a tiny fraction of revenue from print papers is from subcriptions... the bulk is advertising. Why shouldn't this transfer over to the Internet?
Basically, people aren't going to pay for information; they are too used to getting it for free (and have gotten really good at it, too). If all papers start charging, I think people will stop reading directly from the source and begin to get their news from the blogs of people who DO pay for the subscription. I can see it now; a handful of people will subscribe, and they will all copy/paste the information somewhere else on the Internet for everyone else to read. And these third parties won't sell advertising (or, they'll sell ads for their own profit).
Why can't a newspaper company charge oodles more money for an online ad? They know people look at them. Many Web sites have a ticker and can see how many people view the site daily. Or they can track links to see which stories are getting the most hits. Sell expensive ad space on the popular stories, and try to make the revenue pay for the cost of labor.
Getting newspapers ready for todays Internet--a browser setting on a traditional computer isn't where newspapers should be putting resources.
ReplyDeleteThey need to be looking forward to the future by selling applications coupled with subscriptions on iPhones, Blackberries, Kindles, and in the very near future tablet-style PCs.
The newspaper industry missed many opportunities with Web 1.0; hopefully they've learned from them as Web 2.0 becomes even more important.
Here's another take on The New York Times' reported interest in charging for online content. The author of this piece says, among other things, that the Times should not consider Apple's upcoming tablet a savior, but the Times might be in a unique position to charge for content.
ReplyDeleteHere's the piece: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-how-the-new-york-times-should-charge-for-content/