<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Endemic &#187; pay wall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/tag/pay-wall/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog</link>
	<description>a blog on being by Patrick Thornton</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:30:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Thoughts on charging for news (and succeeding)</title>
		<link>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2009/05/29/thoughts-on-charging-for-news-and-succeeding/</link>
		<comments>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2009/05/29/thoughts-on-charging-for-news-and-succeeding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 16:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>pat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State of journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay wall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=1335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A group of newspaper execs met this week to discuss the best ways to collude; I mean &#8220;support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.”
Rather than comment on these legally-challenged meetings, I&#8217;m here to offer some suggestions for charging for news. Let&#8217;s assume that newspaper leaders have committed to charging for news. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A group of newspaper execs met this week to discuss the best ways to collude; I mean &#8220;<a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/05/newspaper-execs-treading-carefully-on-antitrust-laws/">support and preserve the traditions</a> of newsgathering that will serve the American public.”</p>
<p>Rather than comment on these legally-challenged meetings, I&#8217;m here to offer some suggestions for charging for news. Let&#8217;s assume that newspaper leaders have committed to charging for news. Here are my suggestions for what to do and what to avoid:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>You can&#8217;t charge for something that has been free for years without drastically improving it</strong> &#8212; The idea of putting existing journalism content that has been free for years behind a pay wall is laughable at best. More realistically, it&#8217;s suicidal. People simply will not find value in it. After all, it was free for years. What&#8217;s changed now? Your balance sheets? People don&#8217;t care about that. Unless you are suddenly going to hire all those reporters that you laid off back, don&#8217;t even dream about charging for existing content. In fact, most newspapers offer an inferior product today than they did five years ago.</li>
<li><strong>People won&#8217;t pay for the police blotter </strong>&#8211; Just because you spend time &#8220;reporting&#8221; on a subject, doesn&#8217;t mean people will pay for it. Consider carefully what you want to charge for and not charge for. I&#8217;m not saying to give up the police blotter, I&#8217;m just saying to not even dream about charging for it.</li>
<li><strong>It&#8217;s much easier to charge for a new product or feature that was never freely available</strong> &#8212; It&#8217;s much easier to convince someone of the value of a product or feature that was never available before. It&#8217;s new. It can be &#8220;premium.&#8221; If the feature rocks and adds value to people&#8217;s lives, it might just work. This is where news orgs need to concentrate their efforts on. &#8220;What can be create new that people will find valuable?&#8221; That&#8217;s what newspaper execs should have really been discussing.</li>
<li><strong>Even if a news org develops products &amp; content worth paying for, it still needs plenty of good, free content</strong> &#8211; A uniform pay wall with all content behind it is suicide. How will a news org find new users? It won&#8217;t. Any news org hoping to survive and thrive long term needs a strategy that caters to current users while also cultivating new users. Even though most people coming from search engines, Twitter, aggregators, etc aren&#8217;t loyal users, they all offer the ability to convert random users into loyal users. Even pay wall-hero The Wall Street Journal has a mix of free and premium content. Same with ESPN.com. There must be a free-premium model at work. And the free content should satisfy 90 percent of users.</li>
<li><strong>Premium products for premium users</strong> &#8212; You want to develop premium products for premium users. Premium users are dedicated and loyal. They check a Web site several times a day, not a month. Not all users are created equal. <a href="http://www.yelvington.com/a-tale-of-two-audiences">Steve Yelvington points out that news orgs offer a tale of two audiences</a> &#8212; one casual, one dedicated. We want free products for the casual, while also developing premium features, products, access and even user interfaces for the dedicated.</li>
<li><strong>A pay wall won&#8217;t protect print</strong> &#8212; People who left aren&#8217;t coming back to print. This is the worst possible reason for a pay wall, and yet some news orgs are hoping that a pay wall will save print. <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/05/charging-for-content-online-so-people-wont-read-it/">MediaNews president Jody Lodovic said</a>, &#8221;The whole idea is to stop the erosion from print to online and encourage people to become print subscribers.&#8221; Many people simply don&#8217;t want to be print subscribers anymore, especially to a daily newspaper. Everyday that goes by another person from a previous generation dies, while several more who will live their whole lives with the Internet are born. I&#8217;m 24; I&#8217;ve spent most of my life with the Internet. I&#8217;m not going back.</li>
<li><strong>Think outside the box</strong> &#8212; I&#8217;m not a fan of charging for content. Most newspapers have never done this. We charged for a product &#8212; a printed newspaper. People also paid for delivery of said product. I already pay for Internet access and a computer (printing and distribution in the digital world). I&#8217;m not also paying for basic content. Instead, newspapers should concentrate on charging for what they always have &#8212; platforms and products. That&#8217;s really what a newspaper is. Ideas like the <a href="http://timesreader.nytimes.com/timesreader/index.html?campaignId=34W88">Times Reader</a> are a step in the right direction (premium user interfaces and experiences for premium users). Mobile apps present another avenue to charge with. Why not charge for access and community? That&#8217;s one thing newspapers should do well.</li>
</ol>
<p>Getting people to pay for a product isn&#8217;t rocket science. It usually starts with understanding what people are willing to pay for.</p>
<ol></ol>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2009/05/29/thoughts-on-charging-for-news-and-succeeding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
