4 Comments

Summary:

As I ponder the future of The New York Times, it occurred to me that its pay meter could be exactly reversed. I’ll also tell you why this wo…

Stack Of Newspapers On Table
photo: Corbis / Dirk Rees

As I ponder the future of The New York Times, it occurred to me that its pay meter could be exactly reversed. I’ll also tell you why this wouldn’t work in a minute. But in any case, this is a way to illustate how how media are valuing our readers/users/customers opposite how we should, rewarding the freeriders and taxing — and perhaps turning away — the valuable users.

So try this on for size: Imagine that you pay to get access to The Times. Everyone does. You pay for one article. Or you pay $20 as a deposit so you’re not bothered every time you come. But whenever you add value to The Times, you earn a credit that delays the next bill.

»  You see ads, you get credit.
»  You click: more credit.
»  You come back often and read many pages: credit.
»  You promote The Times on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or your blog: credit. The more folks share what you’ve shared, the more credit you get.
»  You buy merchandise via Times e-commerce: credit.
»  You buy tickets to a Times event: credit.
»  You hand over data that makes you more valuable to The Times and its advertisers (e.g., revealing where you’re going on your next trip): credit.
»  You add pithy comment to articles that other readers appreciate: credit.
»  You take on tasks in crowdsourced journalistic endeavors: credit.
»  You answer a reporter’s question on Twitter and the reporter uses your information: credit.
»  You correct an error in a story: credit.
»  You give a news tip or an idea for an article The Times publishes: credit.

Maybe you never pay for The Times again because The Times has gained more value out of its relationship with you. If, on the other hand, you hardly do any of those things, then you have to pay for using The Times.

I’ve been thinking about this, too, in light of a few other trends I’ve seen with newspapers online. First, some that are trying meters are finding that very, very few readers ever hit the wall (which papers are setting at anywhere from 1 to 20 pages). That so few hit the wall is frightening. It means that most readers don’t use these sites much. That’s nothing to brag about. Engagement is criminally low. Second, I’ve seen many sites that get a surprising proportion of their traffic from out of their markets — traffic that is valueless (or even costly, in terms of bandwidth) to sites that sell only local ads. This comes from following a goal of pageviews, pageviews, pageviews — brought in with search-engine optimization — rather than valued relationships.

After hearing a few such stories, I suggested that a site with a meter might want to reward local readers by giving them more free content and charge out-of-market readers by charging them sooner.

You see, that values the local reader over the remote reader. My idea for the reverse meter values the engaged reader over the occasional reader – and even rewards greater engagement. And therein lies, I think, the key strategic skill for news businesses online: understanding that all readers are not equal; knowing who your more valuable readers are; getting more of them; and making them more valuable.

Now I’ll tell you why my reverse meter won’t work: When I spoke with all our journalism students at CUNY about their business ideas on Friday, I asked how many had hit the Times pay wall – many – and how many had paid – few. Abundance remains the enemy of payment. There’s always someplace else to get the news. The Times can make its present meter work because (a) it’s that good [the Steve Jobs exception that proves the rule], (b) it’s still sponsoring — that is, giving a free ride — to its most valuable readers, though that is supposed to end soon, and (c) its engagement is still too low and thus many readers don’t even confront the wall (that needs to change).

So never mind the idea of the reverse meter, but retain the lesson of it: Value should be encouraged, not taxed. Readers bring value to sites if the sites are smart enough to have the mechanisms to recognize, exploit, and reward that value, which comes in many forms: responding to (highly targeted and relevant) ads; buying merchandise; contributing information, content, and ideas; promoting the site….

The key strategic opportunity for news sites is relationships – deeper, more valuable relationships with more (but not too many) people. Engagement.

This post originally appeared on Jeff Jarvis’s BuzzMachine.

This article originally appeared in BuzzMachine.

  1. Funn Networks applies a similar business model. And its coming soon after ten years of waiting for trends to evolve to where they are today :)

    Share
  2. Well said,”Value should be encouraged, not taxed.”

    Share
  3. Dear Jeff, you just discovered what Znak it! is doing (or trying to do) Check here http://www.znakit.com

    Share
  4. This works only if you believe real journalism has no input costs (or, apparently, if you are a comment section troll). Replace “digital paper” in your consumer value example with “automobile” and pretty soon “I never have to pay for a new car again.” How is a real business supposed to survive that outcome?

    Or, try this. Your editor: “Nice column, Jeff. Since 4 people left comments, we are going to give them “credit” for the value they brought us. Unfortunately that means we won’t be able to pay you anything. Oh, by the way, next deadline is this Thursday. I’m off to the Four Seasons. Ciao.”

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post