The Paper of 2018

Apples and Steven Spielbergs.
People are willing to pay the $10. They've always paid $6, $7, $8, $8, $10.
They didn't pay $0, then one day $10.
It is easy to find examples on the extreme. Of course, there will be people willing to pay for the N.Y. Times. I have it delivered to my home. The N.Y. Times will make money. The Washington Post, the L.A. Times. They will find a way. Will it be as profitable? Who knows?
(The N.Y. Times Co. is worth 40% of what it was five years ago. So, it's not all sunshine through Valhalla.)
The question is how the other 1,200-or-so papers and their journalists survive.

 

I just think we have to look at what companies like Google and Yahoo might do with the information if they owned large newspaper chains. We've already discussed the subscription model, and while that might not be the answer, you have to think they will come up with some way to 'own' the information.

 

Yeah. The model is the same: Advertising.
What subscription-based services do Google or Yahoo offer?

 

Whenever I see this argument that since people have never paid for newspaper content on the Web they will never do so, I bring up bottled water. Water has been free for a billions years and it is still free from your tap, from a water fountain, etc., and yet people are willing to fork over $1.50 for a bottled water. And many times that bottled water is simply tap water put in a fancy plastic bottle. The lesson here is that it might take a little while to get used to, but sooner or later people would come around to paying for news on our Web sites.
Also, think about your cable TV bill and satellite radio. Decades ago no one would have thought about paying for TV or radio. They were all free, too. Now people don't flinch at paying an $80 per month cable bill or satellite radio bill.

 

The New York Times tried that route with premium content, and what happened? Same for the Boston Herald.

Let's remember that one could in theory access the content behind a pay wall then repost it on the Internet, thus making your little experiment go end-up. How are you going to police that?

 

Whenever I see someone bring up the bottled water example, I cringe.

Consumer goes to water bottle aisle.
One box is $6 for 24 bottles.
One box is $0 for 24 bottles.

Sure, there might be consumers willing to pay $6 because those bottles have a nicer label and claim to come from a natural spring. But, the masses, aren't paying $6.

EDIT: Fact is, historically consumers have barely paid for information in newspapers. The subscription barely covers -- if it covers at all -- the cost of production and delivery.

 

What stores are you shopping in? I was in a big supermarket today and didn't see any items for $0, so that point is moot. If you want bottled water, you have to pay for it. If you want local news, videos, scores, opinions, blogs and you want them immediately from the only professionals in your area, then, guess what, you should have to pay for it. In most markets, there are other comparable free alternatives to the local newspaper.

 

It was your analogy. Not mine.
If your paper's website charges. Mine doesn't. The consumers are coming to my paper's website.

Or Google. Get it?

 

I once worked for a 30K paper that decided to stop giving away the content for free on the Internet, and instead charge a subscription.

That lasted about three months. Nobody bought it. They just said the hell with it.

The site is a free site today. I'm just sayin' ...

 

That's the point. You have to have the stones to take that hit. You have to run ads saying, "the free lunch is over." And you freakin' can't, because I WAS Herald premium content once upon a time, charge people for columns and not the news. Columnists are the onion rings, news is the steak. I thought I was better than Shaugnessy, but 50 cents as opposed to free better? No, my ego isn't that delusional.