Making news pay
– The free lunch is over
News publishers are sick of picking up the tab for readers and financing newsrooms to churn out stories offered for free on the web. They’ve persisted till now, deceived by brown cardigan dogma about advertising returns, which have so far failed to eventuate. Charging for content is the only choice. But it’s been tried before and people didn’t like it and clicked on other news outlets still hoping for the great online advertising windfall.
However, with money and deep-pocketed publishers in short supply, demanding payment for content is now less risky than continuing the traditional ‘giveaway’ news model.
Business weekly NBR now charges for ‘subscriber’ content. They still give away what publisher Barry Colman calls “commodity content” – more standard business news fare, like profit announcements, takeovers, and so forth – but demand payment for juicy stuff. Stories they’ve investigated, exclusives, stuff you won’t find anywhere else.
Personally, I was a bit miffed at having to pay extra when I already stump up $600 or whatever an annual paper subscription costs. I thought the Economist provided the right model, allowing unfettered online access to subscribers of its weekly magazine, and limiting access to freeloaders. But, as I understand it, NBR’s ‘subscriber’ content is available only online and not in the weekly paper edition, so it’s pay up or shut up.
Colman argues his case here and points out that NBR readers, primarily business people, are prepared to pay for content they can’t get elsewhere, whereas the masses place little or no value on ‘commodity’ news.
Perhaps this is a pointer to the future of publishing. The notion of mass media news delivery is economic folly. Cater to a smaller, homogenised, monied, audience and offer something they can’t get anywhere else. This way they’ll pay for it.
I can’t for the life of me understand why everyone is so quick to condemn our subscription online service. Why would anyone waste time with this almost universally negative wave of speculation? Why is everyone so upset about us beginning to charge for some content? Do they believe they will be harmed by it themselves? Isn’t it us that has the loss to bear? Aren’t we the ones taking the risk? The whole point of our exercise is to end the speculation by launching the new service and not just talk on and on about the financial challenges facing newsrooms everywhere. What happens will be what happens. No one is going to die if it fails. Lauching new products is what happens in business all the time. This is business as normal. WHAT IF IT WORKS? I guarantee the blogs will be flooded with commentators claiming they knew all along it was great idea and was destined for success. Meanwhile the sun will rise in the morning and all predictions will be proved wrong, particularly the ones about the future. While the proof will be in the pudding may be 12 months from now, I can report that incomes from advertising and the new subscriber sign ups pushed our little business site into the black…three days after it went live. I have a feeling we’re on the right track and that businesses WILL pay for useful information, so far they are. Time will tell. best wishes
PR self-interest aside, I want to see news publishers prosper. People, communities, businesses, society, New Zealand, need their stories told. The thought of leaving it to the twitterers and pyjama wearing bloggers and various other propeller heads, who think tools trump telling, makes me ill (occasionally I make myself sick).