Views from opposite sides of the newspaper pay wall
Lots of folks are writing these days about Rupert Murdoch's recent statement that News Corp. plans to stop its newspaper stories from being indexed by Google when it throws up a more comprehensive pay wall next year. His comments came days after the American Press Institute released an intriguing report on digital business models that exposed a gap between the industry's sense of its content's value and the public's perception. Hmm, "gap" isn't exactly the right word. Make that "yawning chasm."
API and ITZBelden surveyed daily-newspaper executives in North America in August and September, reaching a total of about 7% of the publications in the U.S. and Canada. Their responses were compared with results from consumer surveys aggregated by Belden earlier this year. The comparison revealed that news execs believed their stories were more valuable and harder to replace than readers did. For example, 52% of the readers surveyed said it would be somewhat easy or very easy to find a substitute for the online content that news industry websites were providing; 68% of the executives said the opposite.
Here's the most telling table, in my opinion -- it shows just how slim the chances are that readers who can no longer find the content they want on a newspaper's website will migrate to the paper's print edition:
Granted, the API study didn't seem to address the central issue posed by pay walls: how much, if anything, would people be willing to pay to read a story? But it did say this about the fees that newspapers charge for subscriptions to their websites:
"Respondents report a wide range of online subscription charges (from $1 to $27.50 a month), yet they report surprisingly uniform levels of uptake on subscriptions, typically 1 percent to 3 percent of print circulation -- regardless of price."
In other words, the vast majority of readers don't like the subscription model, regardless of how cheap it might be. Micropayments, anyone?
(Thanks to the Center for Media Research for putting the API report on my radar screen.)
-- Jon Healey
When something is available for free its value seems to go down.
The things are right now, I'm able to read articles from a dozen or so news sources from all over the world. Rarely is something only covered in one source. I've become facinated by the subtle editorial bias in the most objective articles and the lack of bias in others.
I hope the news sources find a way to stay in business, but I don't see how they can get all these worms back in the can without collusion that would violate antitrust statutes.
Good Luck!
Joe
Posted by: JSA26 | November 11, 2009 at 08:45 AM
If 30 percent of online readers went to the print newspaper -- and 12 percent went to another print newspaper -- that's not a "thin" chance. That's 4 out of 10 saying they would go to a print newspaper. If print newspapers were to get half of that as a circulation bump, how many problems would be solved?
Posted by: David Sullivan | November 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I read the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal print editions in the morning and at lunchtime, the online editions at night.
Rupert Murdoch wants to "monetise" more of the expensive acquisitions that he has made like the online social network "MySpace" and "The Wall Street Journal" so as he rolls-out online subscription versions their competitors online will benefit from millions of new Clickers.
Presently, "The Wall Street Journal" online version that is supplied with a subscription to the print edition is profitable but many of those are paid-for by business executives' employers.
For more on Fox Cable News attempt to end the "Free Internet" Click "Steve Lee" below:
Posted by: Steve Lee | November 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM