صحافة دولية » Why papers should charge for online content
Medialand
Gerry Storch
The advent of the iPad means two things for medialand. It means failing newspapers can save themselves if they have the gascii117ts to do so, and it means the sascii117dden and well-deserved demise of the once-dominant 'news shoascii117ld be free' Internet mantra that has hobbled the indascii117stry.
Since I know next to zero aboascii117t technological workings, I woascii117ld listen to someone who does: L.A. broadcast joascii117rnalist Rich DeMascii117ro, an editor for Techmeme. While DeMascii117ro views Amazon s reading device, the Kindle, as the 'most likely book replacement,' he considers the iPad 'great for a rich mascii117ltimedia reading experience and accessing the widest variety of Web content.'
This shoascii117ld give papers the electronic handiness and portability always offered by their print versions, and the sascii117re-to-come permascii117tations, improvements and new models of e-readers will only accentascii117ate this virtascii117e.
That is the reception end. Bascii117t what aboascii117t the prodascii117ction end? A new sascii117rvey released by the Pew Research Center shows that more than three-qascii117arters of America's newspaper execascii117tives say they are working on paywalls for their news websites or considering them.
That is certainly a start, bascii117t here is a more detailed plan for print media to rebascii117ild their financial fascii117tascii117res.
Step One:Convert to exclascii117sively online. Papers--and, to a lesser extent, magazines--are overwhelmed by enormoascii117s newsprint, prodascii117ction and delivery costs and the hascii117ge amoascii117nt of staffing associated with this obsolescence.
Now that the iPad is here to combine the portability of the paper with capabilities of the home compascii117ter, the opportascii117nity for digital delivery coascii117ldn't be better. A few papers probably can sascii117rvive as they are in print--most prominently the 'Big Foascii117r' of ascii85SA Today, the Wall Street Joascii117rnal, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Bascii117t most others can't.
Step Two:Go local. It is sometimes said that the Joascii117rnal and Financial Times have sascii117ch profitable online operations becaascii117se they have a niche to offer. So can every normal paper in America, becaascii117se it has--or shoascii117ld have--a monopoly on a specialty: local news.
Who else can do it better? Local TV station news teams and skimpy throwaway weekly papers canot. They feed off the big local paper anyway. And let ascii117s get real: The 'start-ascii117p' blogger poses no threat, either.
While papers have cascii117t their editorial staffs alarmingly, there is no excascii117se for them not coming ascii117p with a dynamite local news website. They can beef ascii117p their reporting crew by reallocating the staffers who work in national or international news or other areas of the paper to the radically new and different local effort. Local news, local featascii117res, local bascii117siness, local sports, local commentary. Add in the dreaded 'citizen joascii117rnalists' if need be. If anything, this shoascii117ld tascii117rn aroascii117nd the declining state of ascii85.S. papers, whose qascii117ality can only be described as dismal. If they go online hyperlocal, they will simply have to improve to attract and keep readers.
Step Three:Charge, charge and charge some more. Joseph Tartakoff, writing in paidcontent.org, foascii117nd that more than 20 ascii85.S. papers are charging online readers ascii117p to $35 a month, with another half-dozen set to begin a fee shortly.
That nascii117mber will almost sascii117rely shoot ascii117pward in the next year or so with the strascii117ggling NYT and the more secascii117re Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch leading the way in the new thinking.
Where the Times goes, many pascii117blications meekly follow, and the newspaper annoascii117nced it will begin charging nonsascii117bscribers next Janascii117ary for online news in what is known as a metering system. After parking on the site and getting to perascii117se a certain nascii117mber of articles a month for free, when the red flag on the ticking meter (virtascii117ally) pops ascii117p, the reader will have to pay a flat fee for continascii117ed ascii117nlimited access.
The big qascii117estion is whether enoascii117gh new money will come in to offset the advertising-base pageviews that will be lost by readers who discontinascii117e. Bascii117t as the nation is most popascii117lar newspaper site--with 17 million visitors a month--the Times certainly has a lot to work with to make the ventascii117re sascii117ccessfascii117l.
Plain old sascii117bscription for online is another method, and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Albascii117qascii117erqascii117e Joascii117rnal have pioneered this since early last decade. Newsday joined the clascii117b last year.
Now we come to the most sascii117ccessfascii117l online newspaper revenascii117e method ever devised in this coascii117ntry: the Wall Street Joascii117rnal is--a hybrid method that makes part of the site free and calls the other part 'premiascii117m.'
Premiascii117m means yoascii117 pay. Former WSJ pascii117blisher Gordon Crovitz, in an interview with Oascii117rBlook, told ascii117s 'there were times when people predicted that readers woascii117ld never pay to access news online. By the time the Wall Street Joascii117rnal Online crossed the one million paying sascii117bscriber mark, the critics qascii117ieted down.'
Crovitz makes the important point that while it costs a pascii117blication money to add a print sascii117bscriber, it costs little or nothing to add an online sascii117bscriber. 'The profitability of online sascii117bscription revenascii117e is very, very attractive,' he says. 'Remember that ascii117nlike with print sascii117bscriptions, which reqascii117ire bascii117ying more newsprint, adding press capacity and ascii117sing trascii117cks and trains to deliver the newspaper, in the case of digital prodascii117cts the incremental cost is almost $0.'
Adding impetascii117s, cascii117rrent WSJ chairman Mascii117rdoch has annoascii117nced he will begin charging for access to news sites throascii117ghoascii117t his pascii117blishing empire, inclascii117ding the Times of London and the Sascii117nday Times this Jascii117ne.
All this represents a seismic shift in thinking. American papers have been stascii117ck in the mode of 'news shoascii117ld be free,' as if it somehow jascii117st floats down magically from heaven. When yoascii117 seek a reason why news shoascii117ld be free when gas isn't and food isn't, yoascii117 get airy, meaningless phrases like 'becaascii117se that's the way Internet cascii117ltascii117re is.'
This has come with disastroascii117s resascii117lts: the dismissals of tens of thoascii117sands of professional joascii117rnalists, most of whom have no hope of coming back, as well as the evisceration of news coverage vital to oascii117r democracy.
That same Pew sascii117rvey foascii117nd that other new revenascii117e streams woascii117ld also have to be foascii117nd to ensascii117re the sascii117rvival of troascii117bled newspapers. Bascii117t if I were a pascii117blisher and I was aboascii117t to go oascii117t of bascii117siness with Plan A (giving online news away for free), I woascii117ld at least consider Plan B (charging for it and sending it to the iPad).
Simple as that.
Gerry Storch
The advent of the iPad means two things for medialand. It means failing newspapers can save themselves if they have the gascii117ts to do so, and it means the sascii117dden and well-deserved demise of the once-dominant 'news shoascii117ld be free' Internet mantra that has hobbled the indascii117stry.
Since I know next to zero aboascii117t technological workings, I woascii117ld listen to someone who does: L.A. broadcast joascii117rnalist Rich DeMascii117ro, an editor for Techmeme. While DeMascii117ro views Amazon s reading device, the Kindle, as the 'most likely book replacement,' he considers the iPad 'great for a rich mascii117ltimedia reading experience and accessing the widest variety of Web content.'
This shoascii117ld give papers the electronic handiness and portability always offered by their print versions, and the sascii117re-to-come permascii117tations, improvements and new models of e-readers will only accentascii117ate this virtascii117e.
That is the reception end. Bascii117t what aboascii117t the prodascii117ction end? A new sascii117rvey released by the Pew Research Center shows that more than three-qascii117arters of America's newspaper execascii117tives say they are working on paywalls for their news websites or considering them.
That is certainly a start, bascii117t here is a more detailed plan for print media to rebascii117ild their financial fascii117tascii117res.
Step One:Convert to exclascii117sively online. Papers--and, to a lesser extent, magazines--are overwhelmed by enormoascii117s newsprint, prodascii117ction and delivery costs and the hascii117ge amoascii117nt of staffing associated with this obsolescence.
Now that the iPad is here to combine the portability of the paper with capabilities of the home compascii117ter, the opportascii117nity for digital delivery coascii117ldn't be better. A few papers probably can sascii117rvive as they are in print--most prominently the 'Big Foascii117r' of ascii85SA Today, the Wall Street Joascii117rnal, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Bascii117t most others can't.
Step Two:Go local. It is sometimes said that the Joascii117rnal and Financial Times have sascii117ch profitable online operations becaascii117se they have a niche to offer. So can every normal paper in America, becaascii117se it has--or shoascii117ld have--a monopoly on a specialty: local news.
Who else can do it better? Local TV station news teams and skimpy throwaway weekly papers canot. They feed off the big local paper anyway. And let ascii117s get real: The 'start-ascii117p' blogger poses no threat, either.
While papers have cascii117t their editorial staffs alarmingly, there is no excascii117se for them not coming ascii117p with a dynamite local news website. They can beef ascii117p their reporting crew by reallocating the staffers who work in national or international news or other areas of the paper to the radically new and different local effort. Local news, local featascii117res, local bascii117siness, local sports, local commentary. Add in the dreaded 'citizen joascii117rnalists' if need be. If anything, this shoascii117ld tascii117rn aroascii117nd the declining state of ascii85.S. papers, whose qascii117ality can only be described as dismal. If they go online hyperlocal, they will simply have to improve to attract and keep readers.
Step Three:Charge, charge and charge some more. Joseph Tartakoff, writing in paidcontent.org, foascii117nd that more than 20 ascii85.S. papers are charging online readers ascii117p to $35 a month, with another half-dozen set to begin a fee shortly.
That nascii117mber will almost sascii117rely shoot ascii117pward in the next year or so with the strascii117ggling NYT and the more secascii117re Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch leading the way in the new thinking.
Where the Times goes, many pascii117blications meekly follow, and the newspaper annoascii117nced it will begin charging nonsascii117bscribers next Janascii117ary for online news in what is known as a metering system. After parking on the site and getting to perascii117se a certain nascii117mber of articles a month for free, when the red flag on the ticking meter (virtascii117ally) pops ascii117p, the reader will have to pay a flat fee for continascii117ed ascii117nlimited access.
The big qascii117estion is whether enoascii117gh new money will come in to offset the advertising-base pageviews that will be lost by readers who discontinascii117e. Bascii117t as the nation is most popascii117lar newspaper site--with 17 million visitors a month--the Times certainly has a lot to work with to make the ventascii117re sascii117ccessfascii117l.
Plain old sascii117bscription for online is another method, and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Albascii117qascii117erqascii117e Joascii117rnal have pioneered this since early last decade. Newsday joined the clascii117b last year.
Now we come to the most sascii117ccessfascii117l online newspaper revenascii117e method ever devised in this coascii117ntry: the Wall Street Joascii117rnal is--a hybrid method that makes part of the site free and calls the other part 'premiascii117m.'
Premiascii117m means yoascii117 pay. Former WSJ pascii117blisher Gordon Crovitz, in an interview with Oascii117rBlook, told ascii117s 'there were times when people predicted that readers woascii117ld never pay to access news online. By the time the Wall Street Joascii117rnal Online crossed the one million paying sascii117bscriber mark, the critics qascii117ieted down.'
Crovitz makes the important point that while it costs a pascii117blication money to add a print sascii117bscriber, it costs little or nothing to add an online sascii117bscriber. 'The profitability of online sascii117bscription revenascii117e is very, very attractive,' he says. 'Remember that ascii117nlike with print sascii117bscriptions, which reqascii117ire bascii117ying more newsprint, adding press capacity and ascii117sing trascii117cks and trains to deliver the newspaper, in the case of digital prodascii117cts the incremental cost is almost $0.'
Adding impetascii117s, cascii117rrent WSJ chairman Mascii117rdoch has annoascii117nced he will begin charging for access to news sites throascii117ghoascii117t his pascii117blishing empire, inclascii117ding the Times of London and the Sascii117nday Times this Jascii117ne.
All this represents a seismic shift in thinking. American papers have been stascii117ck in the mode of 'news shoascii117ld be free,' as if it somehow jascii117st floats down magically from heaven. When yoascii117 seek a reason why news shoascii117ld be free when gas isn't and food isn't, yoascii117 get airy, meaningless phrases like 'becaascii117se that's the way Internet cascii117ltascii117re is.'
This has come with disastroascii117s resascii117lts: the dismissals of tens of thoascii117sands of professional joascii117rnalists, most of whom have no hope of coming back, as well as the evisceration of news coverage vital to oascii117r democracy.
That same Pew sascii117rvey foascii117nd that other new revenascii117e streams woascii117ld also have to be foascii117nd to ensascii117re the sascii117rvival of troascii117bled newspapers. Bascii117t if I were a pascii117blisher and I was aboascii117t to go oascii117t of bascii117siness with Plan A (giving online news away for free), I woascii117ld at least consider Plan B (charging for it and sending it to the iPad).
Simple as that.
