Comments on: Thoughts on charging for news (and succeeding)

By: riverScrap.com

riverScrap.com — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:39:49 +0000

I hate the idea of paying for online content as much as the next person, but at the end of the day it boils down to quality and viability. If a website’s advertising revenue isn’t sufficient to pay for high-quality investigative journalim, then it needs to find the money elsewhere. And besides, there will always be free alternatives to customers who don’t want to pay.

A lot of people seem to have this romantic notion that everything on the internet should be free. They’re deluding themselves.

By: Ken Spencer

Ken Spencer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:22:07 +0000

The metropolitan newspaper I worked for for 41 years was in fact making money hand over fist. It was privately owned, so we never knew how much, but the profits were rumored to be in the neighborhood of 25%. It was a cash cow. I actually subscribed to my own newspaper, because many days I was not in the office. So I paid to be able to read the news at home. I would pay to receive the news from other newspapers, when I read them. I don’t think that they should post their hard work for free. I am just saying that I think micro-payments are a better choice than yearly subscriptions that run over $200. I also don’t understand why people think music should be free. I have always paid for that as well.

By: pat

pat — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:06:19 +0000

@Ken,

You’ve paid for printing and distribution, but you’ve probably never paid for the actual journalism. Most print publications have been sold at a loss for years. Newspapers and magazines are ad supported businesses, and that’s the same model that news orgs have tried on the Web.

The real problem is that advertisers are stuck in their old ways and still prefer print and TV ads to online ads, despite online ads delivery much better analytics. Plus, online ads are much easier to target.

By: pat

pat — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:57:32 +0000

@Jeremy,

Many of the things you list are not comparable to online and print news. Attending a sporting event is a different experience than watching it on TV.

Cable TV is a premium product over network TV. It’s not like Cable TV viewers are paying to watch the same channels and shows.

Bottled water’s success is largely due to marketing and convenience.

You can’t see the same movies for free on TV that you can in theaters. It takes years for them to appear on TV and when they do they are edited.

Etc, etc, etc. These aren’t good parallels.

By: jeremy mott

jeremy mott — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:33:23 +0000

1. No one will buy bottled water if tap water is free.
2. No one will subscribe to cable TV if over-the-air TV is free.
3. No one will subscribe to satellite radio if local radio is free.
4. No one will buy a book if the same book at the library is free.
5. No one will buy a ticket to a sports event if they can watch it on TV free.
6. No one will go to the movies if they can see the same film on TV free.
7. No one will pay private school tuition if public school is free.
8. No one will use a taxi if they can walk somewhere free.
9. No one will pay for pornography online if it’s available online for free.
10. No one will pay for news if it was once available free.

By: Kevin B. O'Reilly

Kevin B. O'Reilly — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:53:34 +0000

I live in Chicago. The Tribune charges $250 a year for a subscription. The Sun-Times is $180, I believe. So, despite the modest conveniences of having a print subscription, I just read them free in Google Reader. Would I subscribe if I couldn’t get the same stuff (and more) free online? Well, at least there would be *some* consideration of it, whereas now you’ve got to be a real sucker — or really attached to print — to even make the deal close to worthwhile. I’d be willing to subscribe to an online-only version at a reduced cost, anyhow. I’m not sure how I’d react, but my reaction now is more amazement that I get the papers for free and I doubt I’d be upset if they decided to start charging.

By: Take 2 on newspaper executives’ secret meeting « Transforming the Gaz

Take 2 on newspaper executives’ secret meeting « Transforming the Gaz — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:30:54 +0000

[...] oppose thoughtful, innovative ways to generate some revenue from unique, valuable content. Patrick Thornton suggested some ways to explore generating revenue from content. And, as I noted in my earlier [...]

By: links for 2009-05-30 — contentious.com

links for 2009-05-30 — contentious.com — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:01:03 +0000

[...] » Thoughts on charging for news (and succeeding) | The Journalism Iconoclast "A group of newspaper execs met this week to discuss the best ways to collude; I mean “support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.” [...]

By: Ken Spencer

Ken Spencer — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:26:56 +0000

But I have ALWAYS paid for my news – I have been a newspaper and magazine subscriber for 42 years. Existing journalism hasn’t been free. And I am not talking about the trash that is on the network TeeVee chanels. That, of course is not news. I am glad to pay for newspaper and magazine content – that’s only fair, right? This business of news being free only started in recent history with the web. Gee, I wonder how that is working out for newspapers? I am favoring micropayments – that seems like a really fair way to pay for the valuable work that is being done at major newspapers around the country..