Posted 02.11.2009
Spare a dime for news? Rethinking free content on the Web
By Mike CoteSince Colorado Public Radio secured a spot on the dial last year for a news channel (KCFR at 90.1 FM), I’ve come to rely on it during my 40-mile commute to and from work. In a world of shrinking newsrooms, CPR and National Public Radio continue to do great work.
During a pledge drive promo this week, a CPR announcer asked listeners to imagine their lives without the station. Sure, it’s a strange business model, the announcer noted: The station provides content and then people send in contributions to keep it running.
Doesn’t sound strange at all, actually.
It may not be a direct buy, but it’s a more workable model than what the media industry has been using online, which is basically giving it away and hoping advertising grows fast enough to support the costs.
And we all know how well that model has been working as newspapers try to transition from a centuries-old medium to a 21st century communications platform. (Click here to watch PR veteran Andrew Hudson’s passionate plea about why keeping the Rocky Mountain News alive is important to the civic health of Denver.)
Walter Isaacson, former manager editing of Time, makes a case for reviving a pay-for-play model for online news media in the magazine’s latest issue – at a time when getting it for free has never been more popular.
“According to a Pew Research Center study, a tipping point occurred last year: More people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines,” wrote Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute. “Who can blame them? Even an old print junkie like me has quit subscribing to the New York Times, because if it doesn’t see fit to charge for its content, I’d feel like a fool paying for it.”
Isaacson’ argues—as so many have before him—that without a means to pay for it, news organizations will continue cutting back on in-depth reporting and laying off reporters as they struggle to survive. Before you dismiss the idea of setting up a system where readers pay small amounts of money for content, consider the success of 99 cent songs on iTunes (6 billion sold so far, Time reporter Josh Quittner writes in a related story about new media technology) and the popularity of $1 movie rentals from Red Box at McDonald’s—and that involves driving there and even getting out of your car.
When I opened my latest cell phone bill, I was shocked to learn my wife and I had spent $16 just from calling directory assistance – at $1.79 a pop. Sure, we should break that habit, but it underscores how paying for content online isn’t such a far-fetched idea. It just needs to be easy, inexpensive – and almost an afterthought.
Media organizations have become dinosaurs in their failure to adapt to new technology, while their readers’ habits change as often as Twitter posts. As this prescient video from 1981 reminds us, they’ve been staring down this tunnel for decades and still didn’t see the train coming.
The early version of the electronic newspaper included stories only, no photos, comics or advertising. And it looked pretty much like reading newspapers on microfilm. But hundreds of local computer users signed on.
”This is an experiment. We’re trying to figure out what it’s going to mean for us as editors and reporters and what it means to the home user,” David Cole of the San Francisco Examiner said in the local TV news report. “And we’re not in it to make money. We’re probably not going to lose a lot, but we’re not going to make much either.”
Isaacson would argue that it’s not too late to change that.
Twenty-eight years ago, it took more than two hours to receive the entire text of the newspaper over phone lines to a computer – with an hourly use charge of $5. And some people were still willing to pay it.
Anybody willing to pay $10 in 1981 dollars for a newspaper online? How about 10 cents?
Last updated on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Readers Respond
1. Water seeks it’s own level. If content remains free less people will be employed to develop content. A consolidation will occur where few providers will emerge to control content; both in terms of topic and ability to charge. Some balance will need to evolve between supply and demand including $ value.
2. Complex lifestyles need to be addressed. It used to be we enjoyed an entire Sunday AM with the paper or a good book. We are now constantly interrupted by the data-pipe hooked on our belt (men) or in our purse (women). We are becoming accustomed to no more than a minute or two of constant attention. We are looking for the bottom line or a relevant blurb. We are also becoming accustomed to a two-way dialog, as such the pay per article idea may need to be a social media model where the content evolves as a function of input form many engaged participants whom pay not for the article but for the privilege of dialog.
3. Finally it should likely start in arenas where the data is vital to business like technical papers and market data.
These are a few of my thoughts, come blog with me at http://www.qwestconnectthedots.com/denver.
Thanks for the interesting topic,
Enrique By Enrique on 2010 06 21
Good point, paying to support online newspapers is a smart idea... if it's done right. Take the Denver Business Journal for example, they don't seem to be having much trouble, or at least I haven't heard of any layoffs. While some of their online content is free, there are also articles that you have to pay to read. It seems to be working.
On the other hand, with the inception and growing popularity of social media, blogging, twittering, wikis, etc., readers have the chance to play the role of the reporter, and it's free. You can't always expect a reporter to be first on the scene to get the news, sometimes it's a bystander snapping a picture with their cell phone that brings the most impact. By Liz Pope on 2009 02 26
I was reminded of this subject again when I read the editorial piece, “Information Wants to Be Expensive,” in today’s Wall Street Journal. I have no problem whatsoever paying for my Wall Street Journal, and I read both paper and online versions. Why? Because the content is well-researched and well-produced. My time is valuable to me, so I willingly pay for intelligently crafted journalism. I would also continue to pay for my Boulder Daily Camera. Where on earth else would I be able to read stories about the rights of poison ivy? By Cate Lawrence on 2009 02 23
Have a great day!!!! By Keith Miller on 2009 02 18
You make a great point about value. Although news is available from many sources, much of it is simply aggregated from traditional producers, such as the Associated Press - which relies on fees from member newspapers to cover the cost of its reporting staff. News is very expensive to produce -- at least news as the way we've defined it for the past century or so. We need a model that will make staffing bureaus in foreign locales and investigation teams that closely monitor the doings of government possible. Someone will find a way to do it -- because people will be willing to pay for it when they realize how much they've lost when it goes away. By Mike Cote on 2009 02 12
You seem to struggle with a relatively simple sentence there at the end, too. First it should be two separate sentences. Second, I believe you mean "our" children. Third, "most of they struggle"??? Good use of the English language my friend.
How ironic! Lol By Lovin the Irony on 2009 02 12
Jeff By jeff taylor on 2009 02 12
Leave a comment