And so it begins: The end of free content

[StephanieFox]

It's started. The only way mags and newspapers are going to be able to continue offering journalism is to charge readers. Otherwise, all you'll be able to read are biased 'news' reports from the Right and the Left and large corporations who have something to sell you.

Very soon, everyone will jump on this bandwagon. You pay $1.50 for your daily newspaper? You'll be paying $.50 per article, or maybe $1.50 a day to access it online.

Note: I like this, because these folks hire me and now they'll be able to pay me what I'm worth. Also, I think we need a journalistic tradition to keep political and corporate leaders honest.

[Zoombie]

Paying for things usually makes for better content, I've noticed.

Yah, not ALWAYS true, but...its easier to make something worthwhile when you aren't starving.

[Slushie]

I don't know how else journalism could stay alive as a profession. These people need to get paid somehow, and I don't think online advertising can cover all the costs. I guess we'll be seeing fewer links in this forum.

[Zoombie]

Or we'll start paying money.

<shrugs> We gotta get out news somewhere.

[Cyia]

So... the truth is worth something, but lies are free?

[astonwest]

If it becomes commonplace, ordinary citizens (and writers) will spring up out of the woodwork to provide free news and do so using online advertising. People will not pay for what they feel they should be getting for free.

[thothguard51]

Where does anyone get the idea that the news should be free? Even unbiased news?

[Slushie]

Well, I have a subscription to The Economist because I value their service enough to pay for it. I think that's called the free market, or something.

[Kitty Pryde]

Who would spend $1.50 on a news article? How many articles are even that interesting? Maybe 1% of the features at the big papers are that good. I could buy 5 articles or 1 paperback book. Hmm...easy choice.

Why can't online newspapers still be ad-supported like they are now?

[Xelebes]

Who would spend $1.50 on a news article? How many articles are even that interesting? Maybe 1% of the features at the big papers are that good. I could buy 5 articles or 1 paperback book. Hmm...easy choice.

Why can't online newspapers still be ad-supported like they are now?


Because online advertising doesn't pay that much.

[Dommo]

I think realistically the problem is that there are TOO many people going after too little.

There will always be a need for the news, but I don't see a need for thousands of newspapers, most of which just share the same AP articles, and only have a slight variance based on locality. When about 3/4 of the papers fold, then the survivors will be in good shape.

Secondly, I see bloggers and twitter playing a bigger and bigger role in journalism. The barriers that used to exist to communicating information to a vast audience, no longer exist. The Iran situation, the crisis in Haiti, and others all attest to this. Anyone with a phone can become an instant Journalist.

[Zoombie]

The problem is, you start to have the thousand monkeys tapping away at keyboards making a Walter Cronkite every once and a while...and that's good. But actually finding the Walter Cronkites is hard.

[clintl]

Secondly, I see bloggers and twitter playing a bigger and bigger role in journalism. The barriers that used to exist to communicating information to a vast audience, no longer exist. The Iran situation, the crisis in Haiti, and others all attest to this. Anyone with a phone can become an instant Journalist.

God, I hope not, because so far, they are as big a problem in the degradation of journalism standards as the cable and network ideologues.

As for me, I still subscribe to two newspapers, and have no plans on stopping. So if free content on the web ends, so be it. I really do not have any issues with these publications charging for it.

[billythrilly7th]

What's wrong with people getting paid for what they do?

:Shrug:

[icerose]

Guess my husband will be happy, I'll have less to talk to him about over things he doesn't care about. :D Truth be told I'll probably get more writing done that way too.

[Shadow_Ferret]

What's wrong with people getting paid for what they do?

:Shrug:

Nothing. What's wrong with me not paying them?

You want to charge me for content, fine, I'll find it elsewhere. Hmm. TV is free.

[Don]

I wouldn't be too quick to buy into the NYT's fearmongering yet.

News has been advertiser-financed since, well, forever, I guess. Content and delivery expenses were split between the news source and the consumer, in the case of papers and magazines, and borne by the news source in all the electronic models we've seen so far. Since the internet delivery costs are fixed, like other electronic models, I expect the news source will eventually cover all expenses with advertising, as TV and radio do today.

I think the glut of sources that Dommo mentioned will shake out and we'll find a new "mass media" model in place, with equivalents to everything from AP, UP and the WJS to the equivalent of inexpensively operated little local radio stations or alternative presses.

Readership will be key, as it is in the traditional media. Right now, the almost zero cost of entry has generated a glut of services. Most of those will go bust relatively soon.

[Dommo]

I think what'll happen is that in the cesspool known as the blogosphere, some will rise to the top as trusted sources.

A guy like Michael Yon for example, and others who are known to be real journalists. Guys that actually end up being financed directly by their readership, as opposed to working for a paper.

I agree that a lot of the blogs are crap, but there are some superb ones as well, and in the end it's all about being able to communicate to the masses. With the barriers lowered, if I really wanted to, I could become a local journalist. I could go to the local courthouse and report on what I see, or chase storms and report on tornadoes that are touching down.

My point isn't so much that blogs are destroying Journalism, but they're basically making it more accessible to anyone who wants to try at it. This is good and bad, the good is that the quality of the top journalists is probably going to get even better, and the bad is that every yahoo can put forth their shake on current events. It's sort of a double edged sword.

[billythrilly7th]

Nothing. What's wrong with me not paying them?

You want to charge me for content, fine, I'll find it elsewhere. Hmm. TV is free.

It is?

You don't have cable?

[LOG]

So... the truth is worth something, but lies are free?
So much to be drawn out of that...

You want to charge me for content, fine, I'll find it elsewhere. Hmm. TV is free.
Actually, that's becoming endangered as well >.>

[johnnysannie]

Nothing. What's wrong with me not paying them?

You want to charge me for content, fine, I'll find it elsewhere. Hmm. TV is free.

Is TV free? It isn't if you subscribe to cable or satellite services. I recently read a news report that said the days of free television are almost over.

[Maxinquaye]

Newspaper that will start charging for news on the web will fold eventually.

Getting paid for news on the web is impossible. It's only a pipe dream.

One of the hardest things to change is media consumption, and several generations of readers have become accustomed to having free news on the web.

And I say that with a little tear in my eye, but that's the way it is.

[Shadow_Ferret]

It is?

You don't have cable?

Cable? Why bother since they went to digital? Every station has like 5 channels now.

[sassandgroove]

TV and Radio aren't free. Even you don't have cable or satellite, you have commercials. Just sayin'.

[Rarri]

Seems reasonable, pay for a newspaper or pay to use their website. As long as the charges are appropriate. Wonder if there'd be good deals for subscriptions? Would be miffed if sites like the BBC started charging.

Plus, here at least, TV isn't free; there's the license fee for a start.

[sassandgroove]

I didn't know this was new. Several years ago I wanted to view something on a newspapers website and they had free content and pay content. I encounter now and then, still. So what's different now?

[nighttimer]

Secondly, I see bloggers and twitter playing a bigger and bigger role in journalism. The barriers that used to exist to communicating information to a vast audience, no longer exist. The Iran situation, the crisis in Haiti, and others all attest to this. Anyone with a phone can become an instant Journalist.

"Instant Journalist?" How does that work exactly? Just sit down in front of a computer and say whatever comes to mind and if someone reads it, "Congratulations! You are a journalist."

With all due respect, that isn't journalism.

Where are the editors? Where is the fact checking? Who are the sources of information?

Where is the in-depth reportage that takes more than 500 words or a story that is more complex than can be told in 140 characters?

As both a blogger and a journalist, I can honestly say there's much more freedom in blogging, but I don't think it absolves me from the responsibility to be accurate in what I write. Just because I can drop f-bombs with impunity doesn't mean I shouldn't try to proofread, edit, and spell correctly. Too many bloggers don't and think slash and burn is the same thing as critically examining an issue and presenting the facts so the reader can make up their own mind.

I love blogging, but it's not journalism. Not yet anyway. There needs to be some universally accepted standards regarding content and what qualifies reporting from simply offering up an opinion that may or may not be an informed one.

Blogs may eventually supplant newspapers as an reliable source of information, but they still have a ways to go. Blogging hasn't found it's Woodward and Bernstein moment yet. It still does a better job of in-depth detailing a cat hacking up a hairball than it does explaining The Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.

[benbradley]

No, it's NOT the end of free content, it's the end of the New York Times...
So... the truth is worth something, but lies are free?
Even more, people PAY to send you lies. High-dollar lies are called advertising. Low-dollar lies used to be in two-line ads in the back of magazines, but now it's just called spam.

And yes, the truth is worth something. You might not need to pay for it with money, but it always costs the use of a discerning mind to, for example, determine whether claims of "fair and balanced" are true.
What's wrong with people getting paid for what they do?

:Shrug:
Oh, nothing!

I'm still looking to get paid for posting opinions in P&CE.
Nothing. What's wrong with me not paying them?

You want to charge me for content, fine, I'll find it elsewhere. Hmm. TV is free.
Strangely enough, most people PAY for TV!
It is?

You don't have cable?
I have DSL that I would have anyway. That makes the incremental cost of Hulu (so far) and other online video sources (so far) zero.
Is TV free? It isn't if you subscribe to cable or satellite services. I recently read a news report that said the days of free television are almost over.
With so few people watching TV over broadcast stations, that may well be true. And the broadcast bandwidth might be better used to give more bandwidth to "personal" bandwidth such as WiFi-like services where someone can pick between millions of channels rather than dozens or hundreds.
Cable? Why bother since they went to digital? Every station has like 5 channels now.
I still ought to hook up my converter box just to see if there's any content on those five channels worth watching. There was very little worth watching with the one-channel-per-station analog model, I doubt the amount would suddenly go up in proportion to the number of channels.

What little TV I've watched in the past year has been on Hulu, and I heard something about Hulu wanting to charge somewhere down the road.

It's the same old Internet business model. Get capital, provide free content until you get a large base of dedicated users, then start charging and see if enough of your user base will pay you so you can stay in business. Such entities rarely do. I think it was Rocketmail in the late '90's that offered "Free forwarding email addresses for life!" and then started charging for that very service. Ever heard of Rocketmail? Yahoo bought 'em, likely at a yardsale price.

ETA: Rocketmail WAS bought by Yahoo, but the free forwarding becoming pay-to-play I'm thinking of is/was iname.com/mail.com:
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/inamemailcom-charges-for-forwarding-2002044/
iname/mail.com had/has a bunch of cutsie domains available for email addresses: teacher.com, engineer.com, doctor.com, cheerful.com ... I had several, and I (and I suppose just about everyone else) dropped them all when they went to the charge mode.

[Zoombie]

...Rocketmail...

No haven't rung a bell yet. And I've been hitting my head against the wall for like...hours.

See, the internet is still maturing as a business place. Its exciting, but you gotta be careful to not overestimate it and run out into the "not quite ready" areas and fall into nothingness...

Its funny, though, the internet is becoming integral to writing. I can send a hundred queries off today if you gave me enough E-mail adresses. Try sending a hundred snail mail queries off in one day. Your tongue would turn purple!

...also, there's that...AW place, but seriously, a forum for writers? That's never gonna fly.

[William Haskins]

In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class.

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

[Chris P]

The alternative to paid subscriptions is to have ads ads ads! Check out Youtube lately? It's annoying, but something like that ain't cheap.

[sassandgroove]

What little TV I've watched in the past year has been on Hulu, and I heard something about Hulu wanting to charge somewhere down the road.
Ben you are tempting me too dump Direct TV.

[johnnysannie]

Back in the olden days before the internet existed, everyone paid for their news. You bought your newspaper or magazine; if you were lucky, you might go to the local library to read either one but that was about it for "free". Maybe a copy left around at the local coffee shop might be "free".

TV and radio have never been totally free - the commercials pay the bills; same for print media. The money making has never been in subscribing but in advertising. (And yes, I've worked in both print and broadcast medias).

Then came the internet with free content, newspapers putting up their issues in cyber space and subscriptions plummented. Why pay for what can be accessed for "free"?

So the cycle turns back to paying for what you read.

We've all been spoiled by the internet.

And just a thought but it's much like the way satellite television has evolved. In the early days, all you had to do was put up a satellite dish - which you had to buy - and then you could pull in whatever was being beamed out. I know people who twenty years or so ago watched uncut television programs (like the Tonight Show) and they thought it was great, free TV. It didn't last; my bro-in-law was one of the last to be getting "Free" satellite television until about five or six years ago when it all became digitalized and scrambled so without a receiver and service, you could get nothing. So now we pay for satellite television - which was once "free".

Remember the old sayings "There is no free lunch"!

[sassandgroove]

I think the issue is finding the price point people are willing to pay.

[BenPanced]

But you're talking about starting to charge for something people have always assumed would be free; people suddenly pop a gasket when you begin charging, especially on teh intarwebz.

[sassandgroove]

But it isn't new. Lots of sights have content that is by subscription only already. The key is finding the tipping point where people think it is valuable enough to pay for, but not too much they go somewhere else.

[Don]

This story does not bode well for the concept of paid internet news.

Newsday’s website (http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/27/newsdays-website-gets-only-35-subscriptions-in-3-months/) gets only 35 subscriptions in 3 months

$260 / year sounds extremely high to me.

[sassandgroove]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect?

So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?

The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site
Haskins beat you too it upthread.

[Hittman]

Where does anyone get the idea that the news should be free? Even unbiased news?

There is no such thing as unbiased news, and if there were, it would be deadly dull.

Well, I have a subscription to The Economist because I value their service enough to pay for it. I think that's called the free market, or something.

Good folks. One of my favorite news outlets.

[William Haskins]

Haskins beat you to it upthread.

these are the consequences of having me on 'ignore'.

[sassandgroove]

but you are so - noticable.

[Don]

Haskins beat you too it upthread.
That's what I get for being an old hippie.
these are the consequences of having me on 'ignore'.
You're way too entertaining to ignore, Haskins.

[Slushie]

This story does not bode well for the concept of paid internet news.

Newsday’s website (http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/27/newsdays-website-gets-only-35-subscriptions-in-3-months/) gets only 35 subscriptions in 3 months

$260 / year sounds extremely high to me.

I agree. $260 is way high a price point. Bad call by the management and they shouldn't be surprised by the results.

#

On the flip side, there's the Financial Times (among others) and their metered pay model. You can view x number of articles for free per month, but payment is required for additional access. Their articles are cached by search engines and can be freely linked to sites like this, so they still maintain on-line visibility. Even though traffic to the site has halved--then steadied--since this pay model was introduced, online subscription has increased by 30% and 2010 could be the first year they get more revenue from content than advertisements.

I'm linking to a blog (http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2010/01/pay-meter-works-at-ft-but-can-it-help.html) (oh, the irony), but his guy knows his stuff. Check out his bio on the right-hand side; it's impressive. Anyways, the NYT is planning to implement metered pay in 2011. He outlines why metered pay works for publications like the FT and WSJ, but may not work for the NYT. In the end, it comes down to the content. Both the FT and WSJ have specialized content on financial issues and a generally wealthier readership. The NYT prints on a less specialized range of issues.

Part of the solution for the media to succeed with the internet could be to use metered pay and specialize their content. The different publications could shrink in number--as we're witnessing--and the survivors could loosely divide the reader market by interests (finance, domestic politics, international politics, social issues, political bent; etc.).

Advertising on the innerwebz is cheap and has been falling (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/05/u-s-internet-ad-revenues-decline-5-3-in-first-half-2009/); the revenue generated from it is doing the same. As of right now, media outlets cannot finance their operations on internet advertisements alone. The analogy to youtube doesn't work because that site provides a different service and caters to a much wider audience than do media outlets. Also, their needs from revenue are different; youtube does not have the same operating costs as NYT.

Another issues is debt, always debt. Tribune is in Chapter 11. MaClatchy and MediaNews Corp are both in default. It's hard to get credit lines extended when so much money is already owed. Some massive internal restructuring is needed.

And I don't have any doubt that the industry as a whole is going to shrink in both overall revenue and number of companies, but it's relative. They may not make as much money as they did back in the day, but the industry isn't going to disappear and--one of the benefits of improved technology--their operating costs could drop if physical newspapers are abandoned. I doubt actual newspapers will still be in existence by the time I'm an old man.

The industry is just shifting around and shedding the extra weight. There will always be demand for reliable information. Sure, bloggers did reporting from Haiti with cellphone cameras. But did they get sit-downs with military brass? Do they have connections on Capitol Hill to get inside information? Do they have comprehensive knowledge of the issues covered? No matter how you want to cut it, someone is going to have to do the grunt work that requires time, knowledge, connections, and money: resources. And when resources are used for a demanded service, then a price tag will be attached. This is professional journalism, a full time job. How many bloggers are going to quit their jobs to be a pro-bono journalist? My guess is: not many. There are reliable blog sources out there; I linked one of them, but there's a difference between sharing knowledge and digging up information at the source.