Thinking out loud ...

Would antitrust laws get in the way of this?

 

deskslave: Almost surely. A reader suddenly deprived of free news from Boonieville could sue if there are two papers in that town and they had both agreed to follow the new national policy of paid Internet news. It could be called a cartel or a conspiracy or something along those lines and everything's free again. Or he could lose.

 

If newspapers charge for it, they will lose (more) money. There is too much information available for free from sources that don't have to charge because they are printing money online, essentially, with advertising.

Something like Insider is for the uber-fan who will pay for content, but it will never be the model for the entire site. The one thing that could help newspapers (actually, their Web sites) is sports going to pay-per-view, which I'm willing to bet happens far and wide in the next 10-15 years. Then people may pay a nominal fee for your content.

Charging for your content will not work. It never would have on a large scale for long (see AOL). Quit daydreaming.

 

There is lots of shit and generic content available for free. That doesn't mean people won't pay for the good stuff.

 

Do you pay for the good porn, Frank?

 

People won't ever find your "good stuff" because it isn't free.

Look, the newspaper industry screwed this up from Day 1 in most cases, and papers that were way ahead of the curve (some in the Knight-Ridder chain) were scaled back just as things were taking off. It was WILLFUL ignorance from the beginning.

And don't think for a minute it was reserved for the bean counters. An editor at a paper I worked for said he/she would make certain I was all-but blackballed by papers when I made the online jump in 1999.

I guess I'm OK with that.

 

If people are unwilling to pay for information, then there's no point in having an information business. Believe me, that applies to advertising, too. There are some major corporations that are thinking their Web site is all the spending they need.
Case in point, the Gap. Eliminated all TV ads. Earnings went up.
If advertiser-supported business models don't work, then charging for content is all that's left. Maybe it won't work. But it has to be tried, or else accept the fact that this society is going to do without its free press.

 

That's really what it comes down to, doesn't it?

 

You know, during one of those writer's workshops down here in South Florida a couple years ago, I remember sitting in on the multimedia session as one of the session leaders, during the course of his presentation, used network television as his argument for why newspapers don't charge for the content. He said you don't pay to watch your local news or listen to your favorite local talkshow host on the radio, so why would anyone accept paying for our content?

Thoughts?

Oh, and by the way, it's nice to see so many responses to my first original thread here on the board.

 

Advertiser-supported business models absolutely work on the Web.

My section of my Web site turns a profit I estimate at about 500 percent. Yes, 500 percent. Yes, that includes a percentage of salaries for the numerous support staff it takes to keep the servers running, etc.

But we've been in the business awhile, and we didn't always make money, and we have an ad staff that knows what they're doing because -- well -- we've been in the business awhile.

I work for what amounts to a major metro in staff size, only we pull in money like an entire chain. We do that because we are a company with worldwide reach and the cross platforms to deliver what 99 percent of fans actually have time or desire to consume. If you want to know what's happening in any sport at the college or pro level, you don't have to go anywhere else. If you have to have that "local" take on the Rockies every day, then maybe we're not your first choice. But you'll come here to read the national take on the Rockies anyway.

Newspapers can't -- or won't -- charge for content because where you really differentiate yourselves is with what amounts to a niche product. Your expertise is local, and in sports in particular is primarily limited to high schools and small colleges. Differentiating yourself on pro coverage? I don't see it, and I read a heck of a lot of it. The four main sports Web sites give me about everything I need to know about anything I want to know about. Your columnists are also a niche draw. And I don't have to read the Bryan-College Station Eagle to know what's happening at Texas A&M.

I figured newspapers were doomed when they started putting together focus groups and reader panels that the brass interpreted as saying "make yourself essential to our lives." So we started covering junior highs. One day I came back from a summer league game and told the sports ed he/she would be better off (and spend less) if they kept me home off the payroll and gave everybody in the stands a $20. Stupid.

 

One other thing to add.

I see no discussions on this board about Mobile Device content. That concerns me.

Newspapers making money on their Web sites is only the interem step. Withing five years, it will be about making money on content delivered to mobile devices.

Think of the Web as being a compact disc ... and it's 1999.

 

Kleeda,

Who, praytell, is your employer?