Comments on: Why pushing for a paywall at the Washington Post completely misses the point

By: Peter Weinberger

Peter Weinberger — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:22:22 +0000

It’s the statement about “adding value” in the last paragraph that’s the issue. When value is added, a paywall can make sense because readers will pay…or subscribe. Our community newspaper is not as general as these dailies, but the issue of value is the same. Our subscriber base has stayed strong because we add value with all our products…print and online. But without our paywall, we could not generate the revenue needed to pay for a staff producing quality content. But I agree that you just cannot use a paywall to stop the bleeding. That’s like trying to make your products better by slashing budgets.

By: Steve Staloch

Steve Staloch — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:26:55 +0000

With the value of those mastheads not on the national radar screen rapidly diminishing, and the industry flocking to gimmicks in order slow the demise of print, I’m convinced it’s time we allowed the marketplace of readers to decide if and when the individual pieces of content produced should be monetized. Not sure how a story or video achieves maximum viral interest and is talked about around the kitchen table or water cooler if parked behind a paywall, and keeping score of how many stories I’ve read or viewed during a publisher-defined period of time is an instinctively negative experience for consumers and technologically porous in practice. And just how many sites will a consumer subscribe to in order to read or view what they want to consume?
Maybe not yet Armageddon, but the issues mainstream publishers face are debilitating and their way of doing business today, unsustainable: aging printing presses reaching the end of their useful life with a negative future ROI; employees cleverly but indefensibly disguised as independent contractors delivering their products; an archaic belief that readers will continue to support a masthead simply because of its one-time relevance and legacy; and the stark realization that with each readership study commissioned, the demos relied on for their very existence are looking even less like the audience advertisers demand they reach.
With the proliferation of metered paywalls, the vast majority of media companies appear intent on writing another Darwinian chapter in their history by following the big publishing dogs over what could well be a fiscal cliff of their own making.
It’s time for innovation that gives publishers the tool to create a new revenue stream based on monetizing individual pieces of content that are credible and virally-certified by the marketplace of readers as worth paying for, rather than replicating failed subscription models of the past.
Steve Staloch
President & CEO
Tolltrigger, LLC

By: Menno

Menno — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:13:47 +0000

Although I really appreciate all the theories about how to make newspapers survive. The real problem – according to me – is that there are just way too many newpapers and news sites. News has commoditized and due to the Internet too many businesses think the solution is to jump to the adfunded and social engagement ship. Well the thing is, even with all the attention in the world, that ship is going to be overcrowded. I can’t believe that paying a premium for my shoes, clothes, tools and cars to keep those companies being able to spend an awful lot on advertising is going to carry on for another 15 years. Despite all the strategies, the market will just wipe-out a lot of established players and newcomers until we have a healthy balance again. There is just too much focus on all the individual players and revisionistic approach about what seems to be working. For me, most activities on the Internet are unhealthy financied. It leads people to believe that things are actually free and the value has gone out of the window. You can become very rich with that for the moment. But you rely on the fact that companies selling “physical” goods keep spending an awful lot of money to make their name known. Something, which the Internet has actually proven, is not required at all.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:36:44 +0000

Chuck, I don’t think GigaOM Pro resembles any paywall out there right now — although it does resemble some of what the Economist does with its market intelligence unit. We’re talking about 50-page in-depth industry research, not a column by a market reporter. I think newspapers would be better off thinking about that kind of offering, not a paywall around their commodity news content.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:34:59 +0000

That’s a great point, Scott — if you are putting up a paywall, your content is going to have to meet an increasingly high bar, and many newspapers aren’t prepared for that I don’t think. Thanks for the comment.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:32:21 +0000

David, as you probably already know, the subscription fees that readers have paid only accounted for a fraction of the cost of a newspaper — the rest was paid for by advertisers, who based their deals with newspapers on the attention that the paper could bring to their ads. That’s what I mean by paying with attention. Should newspapers just throw out that entire model and try to subsist on reader subscriptions alone? And if you have read anything I’ve written on this topic, you will also know that I’ve provided plenty of alternative approaches, which too few newspapers are trying in my view.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:29:52 +0000

Thanks, Carl.

By: Chuck Taylor

Chuck Taylor — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:00:57 +0000

Matthew, what GigaOm offers through Pro very much resembles enterprise journalism — behind a pay wall. I’m not sure how that’s different from a newspaper walling off a certain amount of content it deems worth paying for.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:41:13 +0000

GigaOM doesn’t have a paywall, Chuck — it has a proprietary research arm called GigaOM Pro, which produces in-depth research on industry sectors on a subscription basis. In other words, it is a completely separate content business that is related to the free (or ad-supported) part of our business, which is a model I think more media companies should pursue.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:18:33 +0000

The idea that the Post gives away for free what they charge for elsewhere is fundamentally wrong, given that the Post is only available in its region as a paid print product. 85% or more of the website’s audience is national. The question is, does that 85% care enough about what the Post writes to pay for it? Remains to be seen.