Comments on: Open Thread: Should Newspapers Charge for Online Content

By: Rayvin400

Rayvin400 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:31:04 +0000

Sure they should. One of the reasons newspaper subscriptions are down, is because people figure they can get the same stuff online for free. I worked as an online producer for a newspaper, and was shocked that we put up the same content that was in the daily paper online! What benifit was there to getting the actual paper then?! None. Then we wondered why our paper subscriptions were going down. Uh..duh.

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:20:01 +0000

Oh foolish people. If newspapers all go paid online, there will be no free content available. Who do you think provides the content you are currently seeing online?

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:07:33 +0000

It’s only a matter of time before the quality press will start charging for on-line content. I think when ‘the times’moves that way others will follow and fast.Just like they have for every other innovation. The model already works for specialist publications and for broadcasters with added value content available for subscribers and those who want to pay and an ad supported basic edition provided free-the best of both worlds for the publisher as they get revenue from advertising and revenue from subscriptions. As for the tabloid press, they are already in essence a free sampler for premium/paid for content via chatlines, multimedia, gaming sites etc all owned by the companies who own the papers. Apart from all of this many of the big players own or are part-owned by the same companies who you probably get your internet access from and the same companies whose movies and TV shows you watch and who own the rights to the music you listen to and control the venues where you go to see them or hear them play. There are only a couple of dozen significant media companies worldwide whatever the delivery system, medium or content. And for anyone who doesn’t believe they will pay for premium content-you are welcome to a world of constant rolling adverts, community television, amateur blogs etc. or of course pirated/stolen content but then wasn’t it always thus.

By: Subscription? « Sean Versus Online Journalism

Subscription? « Sean Versus Online Journalism — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:51:40 +0000

[...] By seanvsonlinejournalism This thread on the website GIGAOM is a discussion based on whether or not it would be realistic. Rupert Murdoc recently argued that [...]

By: WWMMD - What Would Media Moguls Do? « Spill The Coffee

WWMMD - What Would Media Moguls Do? « Spill The Coffee — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:34:33 +0000

[...] Open Thread: Should Newspapers Charge for Online Content (gigaom.com) [...]

By: Gadget Sleuth

Gadget Sleuth — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:59:55 +0000

They should be able to charge, but people won’t put up with it…so they won’t be able to, or it’ll suffer the same fate as the print newspapers are right now.

By: maristi

maristi — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:31:38 +0000

You’re right. 90% of news reported or discussed on blogs right now comes from newspapers. Over time new business models will emerge. For example how Josh Marshall at TPM focuses on one story and gets information from readers is very encouraging. Or the new HuffPo investigative fund, or the new micro grants at DailyKos.

But in the near to medium term there will definitely be a dangerous news coverage gap. I blogged on this last year:
http://tinyidea.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/the-coming-news-coverage-gap/

By: | Balu |

| Balu | — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:16:13 +0000

Some perspective from India…
There are news agencies like ANI, PTI, IANS which bring out slightly rehashed news stories which appear in UK/US. They are cheaper than having a syndication arrangement with any publication there. Search for any “interesting” story on Google you might find result of a particular “thaindian.com” popping up first. What they do is just publish ANI, IANS, PTI stories with an earlier dateline. The result they get more visits than the newspaper than the newssite which published in reality. So much for the ad-revenue which they were supposed to get online!
So I won’t blame Murdoch for thinking like this.He doesn’t have any clue how the internet works else he would have done something about sites like these than churn out paid online content! =D

By: realist

realist — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:03:28 +0000

Where do you dreamers think all that content comes from on Google? From bloggers? I’m a working journalist and I’ve never seen a blogger at a murder, car accident, social event or town meeting. From average citizens? Hey it’s fun the first five times, after that it’s a bit too much like work, especially if you bother with troublesome things like confirming information and talking to enough people to understand a situation. From people who want you to buy something, whether it’s an idea or a product or a service? Yeah, for sure.

If you put newspapers and television stations out of business, the flow of actual usable information will shrivel and you won’t have “a million different sources” any more. You’ll have a pile of steaming crap. And they will go out of business, because all this talk about the success of online advertising is a hooey in terms of supporting an information gathering and processing center capable of really and truly telling you what is going on and giving you validated information you can depend upon. Look at Seattle: The newspaper converted to online, went from 150 in the newsroom to 25. There is no way 25 people have the critical mass necessary to cover Seattle satisfactorily. It will be a fine website, perhaps specializing in one facet of information. But there’s only enough revenue from the Web for 25 people, not 150.

Reduce the number of people in the world who get out of bed every day to go find out what’s going on by the same ration and you won’t know what’s going on.

This “information wants to be free” crap needs to stop. If you think that’s a valid argument, go on down to Starbucks and tell them coffee wants to be free. Then hit Banana Republic and tell them that. While you’re at it, talk to Steve Jobs and tell him Apple computers need to be free. Your landlord, too; tell him his rooms want to be free. Good luck with that.

Are the books put out by internet gurus who tell us “information wants to be free” available for free? If not, why not? Are they making speaking engagements for free?

What about you. Are you working for free?

If “free” is the business model, I’m all for someone else trying it. As a working journalist, I’d like to get paid, straight up, for the value of what I produce.

By: Open Thread: Should Newspapers Charge for Online Content (Ameaça Aberta: Os Jornais deveriam cobrar por seu conteúdo?) « JCC.COM

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:37:33 +0000

[...] Om Malik | Friday, April 3, 2009 | 5:15 PM PT | 23 comments [...]

By: Online Advertising

Online Advertising — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:46:13 +0000

When compared to traditional advertising it becomes obvious the objective of marketing.

Marketing is not what generates a sale or closes the sale. Marketing in any business is to attract a potential customer.

It is the responsibility of the business, be it bricks and mortar or online to close and complete the sale.

So the question is, will advertising decline? Well to answer that question then simply ask yourself, does your business still need a flow of potential customers?

If there is a replacement for advertising, online or offline, then maybe.

Sure businesses have tighter budgets now, but should they increase their potential customer flow or let it dwindle in times of recession?

Simple answer, never let the customer flows dwindle. Cutting costs and expenses is important when revenue drops, but cutting expenses will not cause revenues to increase. Only increasing customer flow or web traffic will.

Cost per click and Cost Per Action Online Advertising is a wiser investment now more than ever as businesses begin to measure the quality of marketing efforts and the ROI.

By: Virtual Web Symphony

Virtual Web Symphony — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:01:53 +0000

WSJ model may be working well presently but it is not the only revenue generating model. WSJ can bring in traffic and let people keep coming back even though the content is paid, just because WSJ has created a name for itself. But if any other online newspaper achieves the same standing as WSJ has been able to achieve, then continuing with the paid online newspaper edition will be a problem.

By: Cardaleel

Cardaleel — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:59:07 +0000

I would never pay for online content, and I believe most people won’t either. If newspapers start charging for it, it will be valueless. They must figure out a business model that would not charge people for online content, and I believe it’s doable

By: leedrake

leedrake — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:55:15 +0000

Um, the NY Times TRIED charging for it’s archive. It was a miserable failure and they went back to a free archive.

By: VitaminCM

VitaminCM — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:13:20 +0000

Free, ad-supported, content. Seems to work for television, blogs, and music streaming services.
They need to monetize around other things. such as: NY Times crossword app for iPhone, Wall Street Journal minute on news shows, Sports Illustrated feeds into other sites. Charge the site owners for the content and let them monetize around their own ads/subscription fees.

By: robert ivan

robert ivan — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:05:55 +0000

You can back into those articles for free from from Google News. Just copy and paste the title of the locked article you want into the Google News search and go.