Mark Potts seems to confuse the idea that believing paid content models are a bad idea with some sort of romanticism about journalism.
Never mind, that expecting people to pay for general news is, simply put: A bad idea.
Ironically, it’s the journalistic romantics who most often scream, “oh content is worth something! People should pay for it, damn it!”
It reminds me of the homeless man on the street corner asking passersby for spare change. He has no more leverage over their pocketbooks than the journalists whining about free content. They used to say, “You can’t get blood from a turnip.” You can’t pry open a pocketbook that is determined to stay closed, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.
Wishing has never made for good business plans.
Look, it’s a tough reality, but either we figure out how to make our online revenue through advertising or we’re screwed. Paid content is just not an alternative. Mr. Potts sites examples of seemingly successful paid content sites, but all prove how hard it is to make paid content work, because all are specialized verticals with little competition (possible exception, ESPN, and I question the level of their success). They are also sites that are national in scope.
There is no evidence that local online news drives the kind of broad based passion needed to convince substantial numbers of people to subscribe it.
Sure, people subscribe to the print edition in substantial numbers, but as we’ve discussed before, they’re really only paying for delivery, not the content. Users do pay for delivery online, just not to the newspaper company. They pay it their broadband provider.
Like Mr. Potts, journalism long ago lost it’s romantic grip on my soul. To me, this is a simple business calculation.
Previously: Reasons why paid content is a bad idea
Howard, I agree with your overall point: we’re not going to make it on paid content online.
But I think people — at least some people — pay for more than just delivery when they subscribe to a newspaper. A printed newspaper is a convenience bundle of consumer value propositions. Delivery is one of them. News/editorial content is another. The ads are still others.
If people paid just for delivery, why would anyone pay for a paper out of a rack, or in a supermarket, or at a newsstand?
Jay, I’ve thought about this before … there is still a delivery service that goes into newsrack sales. The papers need to get to that rack somehow.
But let’s say the newspaper in a convenience bundle — that bundle doesn’t exist online. Without taking the time as I’m running out the door to go back and read your previous posts, maybe you’ve covered this aspect before, but if people are paying for the whole bundle (at 50 cents per pop, or so), that makes the idea of paid content online seem even less intelligent. You’re just not selling consumers the same experience.
In other words, there’s something about the economics of the printed product vs. the online product that prevents an easy 1-to-1 relationship economically.
[…] howardowens.com: media blog » Blog Archive » Free content isn’t about romanticism; it’s about business “Sure, many people subscribe to print news, but as we’ve discussed before, they’re really only paying for delivery, not the content. Users do pay for delivery online, just not to the newspaper company. They pay their broadband provider.” (tags: newspapers news+biz delivery business economics tidbits+fodder media+evolution) […]
[…] Freebies With Murdoch working to make the Wall St. free online, and with this discussion I found about free online newspapers, I wondered what the next gen journos think on the topic.Sure the pundits, publishers and higher-ups have all had their say – but we’re the ones who will be staffing and running the next-gen newspapers.I think newspapers should most certainly be free online. As the discussion linked to above so eloquently states:”Sure, people subscribe to the print edition in substantial numbers, but as we’ve discussed before, they’re really only paying for delivery, not the content. Users do pay for delivery online, just not to the newspaper company. They pay it their broadband provider.”Now share what you think? Published Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:29 PM by SonyaSmith Filed Under: Journalism 2.0, Talk about news […]
I consider myself a romantic (which is why I didn’t fit the corporate mold, I think…), but I don’t think content (most of it, anyway) should be locked behind paid walls.
I bet it wouldn’t be too hard for me to throw something together so that people could donate ‘tips’ to blog writers on Muncie Free Press. (I think ePluribus is doing this now?) It would be voluntary that way, though, which might work.
There are so many things to try to wrap your head around with online these days – being in middle of the Chaos Scenario as Bob Garfield once put it. I’m trying to concentrate on customer service – listening to and interacting with our readers.
Eventually (Lord willing), I’ll have enough cash flow to meet or exceed the reporting capabilities of the sparse Gannett Newsroo… er, Information Complex… Oh, wait, Information Center. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist.) Anyway, when I can compete with them for the basics, it’s going to come down to customer service, putting people before profit.
Okee, back to the trenches…
-kpaul
Oh, one more thing (after reading comments, sorry) – Convenience Packages – people don’t need (or really use) newspapers for this. They have Del.icio.us, Squidoo and a bajillion other online apps/places to conveniently pull together their information of choice. If this is true and as the tools to do this become easier to use (and learn our preferences while we use them) – it’s going to be about the sense of ‘community.’
And you can throw some web 2.0 features on a site like USA Today (or patch phpBB forums to your CMS as is the case at The Star Press), but that doesn’t *make* a community. It’s just framework, tools.
I read somewhere that Newmark still answers email and handles a lot of customer service stuff personally. He’s not a dumb man.
-kpaul