PaidContent reports that a group of US newspaper executives met secretly to discuss charging for online content. Their next moves will be crucial. If they get this wrong they will suffer the same consequences of films, videos and music and have their content made available free through a variety of sources online. The Atlantic has good coverage on this story too.
Publishers need to understand that their main funding has not come from charging for access to content, it has come from advertising. To try and monetise content online through consumer payment will require a significant shift. I don’t see this working.
Look at what Dennis in the UK has done. They have created new online brands for specific demographics. They have engaged advertiser support. The financial model is based entirely around the new model and not trying to fund the high cost of the old (print) model. Look at what Crikey has done here in Australia – a pure online brand, subscription and advertiser supported and, again, based entirely around the new model.
Publishers trying to backend their operations into an online content paid for model is a recipe for failure. The people to build monetise content online most successfully will be more likely not currently working for a print media company.
Go back to the interview with Rupert Murdoch to which I referred earlier today. In discussing weather and similar services he says people will have to pay for this. No, they will not. It is too late for publishers to try and charge for what is free from so many sources.
Hi Mark
I know Rupert Murdoch is getting on a bit, but on newspapers I would not like to second guess him. I suspect the ‘paid for’ digital newspaper that he was indicating this week will be very different from today’s model.
The key question is, who will be the audience?
And of course we newsagents don’t fit into a digital strategy of delivery!
Steve
Steve,
I should have been clearer. If he is expecting to get paid for content online then I’d say that will not happen. If, on the other hand, he is looking to get paid for access through other devices then that will work – like the Kindle and the iPod.
You’re right about Murdoch – he has an excellent track record.
Mark
Name one wiz bang internet model of news on the net that is huge…… I mean makes lots of money employs thousands read by at least 1 million everyday and is a real threat to newspapers.
Paul,
The internet is not the same as print. People aren’t publication-loyal on the internet. If they’re getting their news online it is likely from some syndication/search platform.
Exactly. Then why would spend your advertising dollar with them if you knew that it’s so fragmented.
Because that syndication leads somewhere. Online news publications need to to employ strategies to get their articles high on syndication lists. Advertisers will spend their money where the traffic is directed.
I think it has to be paid for some where down the line whether buy the reader or by advertising – As the bumper sticker goes : “Arse, Grass or Cash, No one rides for free”
Can you get a journalist in a war zone for free, and not pay them for it? If you did pay for it, couldn’t that be copyrighted so no other newspaper website could use the story?
Just another way to see the online situation.
Frankly, I can see Murdoch’s point about paying for content. As a consumer, I am willing to pay for online news (apart from newspaper and magazine subscriptions) – the Wall Street Journal being one example.