Thinking out loud ...

[WriteThinking]

I don't understand how papers could charge for online now that so many have cut staff, beats, etc. Who are they fooling? If a paper told its readers they were pumping tons of cash into the product, hiring new people, covering every inch of town (as opposed to asking "you, our readers, to send us your community news!") and then saying they must charge, then at least readers know they're getting a real product. Just the perception can go a long way.

Look at the Sporting News, about the only entity I read about on the board these days that's hiring, and hiring a lot. I don't know what their plan is, but if it involves paying for the online product, I could justify giving it a shot because I see what they're putting into the business. Of course, I am in the business so maybe that's different. Joe Sixpack fan who gets all he needs off TV and the occasional web surf might be gone forever as far as we're concerned. He also might not, but it's worth finding out by going after him with both barrels. What passes for content in some places these days won't cut it.

It's not a matter of whether we're fooling people, or whether we're even trying to do that, or not.

People should pay because, otherwise, they are getting products/services rendered for nothing. Period. And, that can't/shouldn't happen, in any business.

It is funny, and correct, however, how everything always comes back around to the idea that, whatever our delivery/dissemination method, maybe we ought to be improving our content, staff and working conditions -- growing our product -- instead of constantly tearing it up and tearing it down.

That maybe we should try making ourselves better, instead of just different, and/or worse. That we ought to, frankly, be doing more and better at, pretty much, what we used to do before we started throwing out everything but the kitchen sink.

 

[joe]

I know my stance on this differs from many on this board.
But, newspapers have never charged the consumer for their content. To think now, because the rules have changed, that they are going to reach into a paid content realm and save the industry is ridiculous.

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.

I think Andy is right on with this. If papers start charging for online content, I think more people will abandon them and simply get their news from TV, whether from cable stations such as CNN, Fox or MSNBC or simply their favorite local and major-network national broadcasts.

The only thing the papers have going for them -- except for, you know, depth and breadth and institutional knowledge and things of value -- are obits and comics.

A hard rain's a-coming. Man the lifeboats.

 

[goalmouth]

I'd like to think that once the newspapers are done reshaping their business model, they'll start charging for content and that once the big guys do it, the sheep will fall in line. But that doesn't account for very profitable syndication and second-use agreements that won't be as easily reworked.

 

[captzulu]

Here's one problem I see with comparing paying for newspaper content vs. paying for goods like a car or a soda. When I buy a soda or a car, the money I spend lead to a return of exactly the good I'm looking for -- a soda or a car. When I buy a newspaper or buy a subscription to a general news site, what percentage of the content that I'm paying for am I actually interested in? 10%? 5%? You can't make me pay for wire content since that's available elsewhere. Even on local content, how much of what's in a paper everyday qualifies as must-read or very relevant, and how much of it falls into the "oh, that's nice. Moving on" category? My experience with local papers has been that much more of their local content fall into the latter than the former.

A niche business or sports publication can make a pay model work because of the narrow scope of their content means a higher percentage of their content will be of interest/relevance to their subscribers, thus justifying the subscription. But asking people to shell out money for a subscription to something on the off chance that they might find something in there that's relevant or interesting to them is a pretty tough sell.

 

[dixiehack]

When I buy a newspaper or buy a subscription to a general news site, what percentage of the content that I'm paying for am I actually interested in? 10%? 5%? You can't make me pay for wire content since that's available elsewhere.

Water is available free from public fountains, and virtually free from the kitchen tap. So why do millions of people pay for bottled water? Some of it on the upper end is for the label's snob appeal, but mostly you are paying for the convenience of having it packaged and at the perfect temperature, right when you want it.

One thing I learned in business school is that products and events that charge a nominal fee often outdraw similiar products/events that are free, simply because the customer percieves a value there.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Arguing about paying for content at this point is watching the horse run away to a farm three counties away and wondering if using a better lock would keep the horse in the barn. In terms of charging for content on the internet, it's out of the barn and its not coming back.

Except in limited circumstances (live streaming video of an event, porn, gambling advice, etc.), the paradigm has been established: internet users generally do not pay for content. When newspapers and everyone else started giving away content around the end of the 1990s, it established in users' minds that they do not have to pay for content. How many sites have successfully charged for content? Those that do are generally pretty unique. Take ESPN Insider. It has an international reach and has enough stuff behind its wall to entice people. It also has the ESPN brand name and synergy backing it up. But the content behind the Insider wall is fairly limited when compared to their website as a whole. The lessons don't transfer over to most newspapers. The NY Times charged for the one thing it had that no other newspaper has: it's opinion columnists. And it was a failed experiment. Charging directly for content has your newspaper fighting how users view the internet.

What might work is something along the lines of the Salon hybrid model. You can either pay for complete access or users can watch a 10-15 second advertisement that they have to wait to click through. By promising advertisers that their ad will be only thing on the users screen, you can help convince them that their ad will be noticed.

 

[Beach_Bum]

I say again, partner with the cable companies and other ISPs. Get a flat fee built into the cable bill, similar to the current tiers or premium services. The (ISPs) get a cut and access to exclusive news content to bolster their own sites. Everyone gets better advertising reach. And readers/viewers barely notice because they are already paying this bill.