“What we’re seeing is a tide sweeping through the industry of publishers lowering their meters and moving to prices that reflect the true value of their content,” Press+ cofounder Gordon Crovitz said in a statement.

Data from the company’s publishers shows that the average price of a monthly subscription was $9.26 in January 2013 — up five percent from July 2012 and 40 percent from July 2011:

In addition, Press+ says its clients are lowering their meters. On average, they offer 10 free articles per month, down from 11 last September and 13 at the beginning of 2012.

It’s worth noting that Press+ works with a lot of large newspaper companies. Pricing is likely to vary at smaller organizations and on blogs like Andrew Sullivan’s Dish (which runs its metered paywall through TinyPass), but it will be interesting to watch whether the trend of upward pricing and fewer free articles occurs across sites.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock / Voronin76 

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• How to compete with Facebook in 2013
• How consumer media will change in 2013

On Tuesday, AllThingsD’s Peter Kafka reported that the startup has hired longtime ad vet Trevor Kaufman as CEO and pulled in $1.25 million in seed funding.

Startup Tinypass’s core customers have been hundreds of small-fry news and music publishers who use its services to provide “metered browsing” or ad-free upgrades to readers. In January, however, the company got a big boost when star blogger Andrew Sullivan said he was using the platform to charge readers for his $19.99 annual subscription service.

The new funding and Sullivan’s star power could help Tinypass nip at the heels of the big player in the paywall space – Press+, which was launched by publishing vets Gordon Crovitz and Steve Brill.

Like Press+, Tinypass takes a cut of the paywall revenue (two to ten percent, depending on volume) but also differs as it does not charge a start-up fee.

Although increased competition could lower the prices that Tinypass and Press+ can charge, the good news for the companies is that the overall paywall pie is getting bigger. According to a recent report by news analyst Ken Doctor, it will soon be rare to find a news outlet in North America or northern Europe that doesn’t charge for content in one form or another. Others, like my colleague Mathew Ingram, remain skeptical that restricting reader access is a good idea (see a recent debate over the issue here).

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• 10 ways big data changes everything
• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content

Tinypass, which signed up its first four publishers in December 2011 and says it now works with over 250 publishers (through a revenue share — see below), had tested the metering option with the news site Chicago Phoenix and is now making it available to everyone. The metering function is built into Tinypass’s WordPress and Drupal plugins and its APIs, and publishers can choose to meter by number of articles retrieved or by time frame (say, unlimited content for 24 hours).

Publishers who want to add a meter can choose from two options: client-side, which works by adding a cookie to a user’s browser, or server-side, which a user can’t circumvent by clearing cookies. Publishers can also choose whether they want to include links from social networks in a metered article limit, or whether they want those to be free views.

Tinypass makes money through a revenue share with publishers — taking a cut that ranges from 2 percent to 10 percent depending on volume. (The publisher’s share increases as volume increases.) That’s one way the company differentiates itself from Steve Brill and Gordon Crovitz’s Press+ (now owned by RR Donnelley), which charges publishers a setup fee. Also, Tinypass COO David Restrepo told me, Press+ is “very focused on newspapers and on bundling the physical paper with digital editions,” while Tinypass is “digital-native, digital-first and focused on media” like MP3s and PDFs, not just newspapers.

Tinypass was founded in January 2011 as part of Hudson Media Ventures and has raised $500,000 $1,000,000 in angel funding.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Thirty-nine percent of Press+ publishers let readers view fewer than 10 articles per month for free; more than half of these let readers view fewer than five articles per month for free.

Press+ is presumably sharing this data because it wants to sign up more publishers as clients and doesn’t want them to fear the paywall. Co-CEO Steve Brill said in a statement:

“We know that having a sudden, blunt pay wall pop up before visitors can read anything doesn’t work, because unlike the meter, with its advance messaging that tells people they will be asked to pay after they have read five or ten articles in a month, consumers can’t sample the content and don’t get into the mindset of being ready to pay when they are asked to pay. So some kind of metering is absolutely necessary, not only for maintaining traffic and ad revenue, but also for maximizing subscription sales. However, setting the meter lower, at, say five to ten articles, seems to hit the sweet spot — allowing sampling while enhancing subscription revenue.”

It’s unclear why publishers are gradually offering fewer articles for free, but they may be following the lead of the New York Times, which recently cut the number of articles it offers free online to ten per month, from twenty. It’s worth noting, though, that 61 percent of Press+ publishers still offer at least 10 articles free per month — suggesting that if there is a sweet spot between sampling and revenue, nobody agrees on what it is.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise
• What the New York Times Can Learn From Rupert Murdoch’s Paywall

We do — that was that state of digital media when paidContent launched in 2002. Other weird things were happening back then too: People still got much of their news from television and newspapers, and they learned about major events after they had already happened.

There have been some huge shifts since 2002: Tablets and smartphones are now ubiquitous, lots of people read on their digital devices, and just about everyone is part of a social network or three. This summer is the tenth anniversary of our launch. In an effort to gain some perspective on the past decade in digital media, I’ve been reading back through paidContent’s archives — a collection of over 80,000 posts.

Since I was only a freshman in college when paidContent came to life, I often didn’t know, as I read through the stories from the early days, how things had begun or how they turned out. As I watched them unfold, I wanted to grab our readers’ arms and give them advice (“Don’t buy that Zune!” “Invest in Facebook!” “Go for the good Twitter handle now!”). But I also realized how difficult it is to predict success.

Some takeaways from my trip through the archives:  Some companies — AOL and Yahoo come to mind — have been consistently bad at predicting what consumers want. And a couple of companies, namely Apple and Amazon, have been very good at it. Also, being a native digital company helps, but it’s no guarantee of success (what up, MySpace?). And after all these years, it’s still not clear what content customers will pay for, or how much they’ll pay.

Streaming and Moviebeaming

What do analysts, CEOs and bloggers have in common? None of us can predict the future. Roger Ebert joked in 2002 that “on-demand streaming movies on the Web, like HDTV, are five years in the future — and will be for at least another 10 years.”

If Disney’s Moviebeam had been the only game in town, Ebert probably would have been right. When it launched in three cities in 2003, customers paid $6.99 a month to use a device that could hold 100 movies and plugged into the back of a TV set. They also had to pay for each movie they watched– billing was done via the phone line. The company went through various unsuccessful iterations before India’s Valuable Group bought it in 2008. It was never heard from again.

Netflix almost went down the same road. It had a plan to release a Moviebeam-like “proprietary set-top box with an Internet connection that could download movies overnight.” But instead, it decided to forge ahead with streaming — starting with a complicated “quota hours” system in 2007 and moving to unlimited streaming in 2008. By 2010, the majority of subscribers were streaming something, and the company began offering streaming-only subscriptions, though CEO Reed Hastings said that same year that the company would keep shipping DVDs until 2030. (We’ll see about that.)

ABC was the first network to sell episodes of its shows on iTunes, back in 2006, and to stream shows free with ads on ABC.com — and later on AOL. But by the time premium subscription service Hulu Plus launched in 2010, the platforms getting the attention were devices with built-in access, like Internet-enabled TVs, Blu-ray players, and tablets.

Return of the living dead

Speaking of AOL: It’s something of a miracle that the company still exists. In 2000, when it merged with Time Warner, it was valued at $350 billion, and the next year, more than 24 million people in the U.S. were paying for its Internet access service. By the end of last year, that number had dwindled to just 3.3 million subscribers. Here’s a quick recap of some of AOL’s miscues over the years:

• AOL Voicemail ($5.95 per month)
• A teen service called Red (featuring “a talking head—using the image of an actual employee—that uses software to answer users’ questions”)
• A digital music partnership with Burger King
• A reality show called “Gold Rush”
• Social networking site AIM Pages
• Going free
• The hyperlocal Patch blogs

Though AOL was once a high flier, no other company ever liked it quite enough to buy it. Google bought a five-percent, $1 billion stake in AOL in 2005, leading analysts to wonder if Microsoft missed out. That resulted in a $726 million writedown in 2009. Time Warner bought back Google’s stake and finally spun off “the albatross” in December 2009.  AOL is still promising a bounceback. “The executive team expects a profitable content business by next year,” CEO Tim Armstrong said in May 2011.

Yahoo hasn’t fared much better. The company launched Yahoo Platinum in 2003; for $9.95 a month, subscribers got access to audio and videos.  The program was dead by October of that same year. It later tried a Twitter-wannabe microblogging service (“Meme…where you share everything that you find that’s interesting,”). Perhaps the smartest move Yahoo ever made was not buying AOL.

Where did these companies go wrong? In 2010, former Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin pondered that question in an interview with the New York Times . The AOL-Time Warner deal was “undone by the Internet itself,” he said. “I think it’s something that no one could have foreseen, and to this day, whether Apple is going to dominate entertainment or whether Amazon is going to dominate publishing, all the old business plans are out the window. How do you get paid for content?”

Know what’s cool? A billion dollars

In 2006, an RBC Capital analyst estimated that a certain social networking company would be worth $15 billion in a few years, based on “raw, unprecedented user/usage growth.”

Six years later, Facebook went public with a valuation of $104 billion. Too bad the analyst wasn’t talking about Facebook but about MySpace. The social networking company that Rupert Murdoch acquired for $580 million in 2005 sold for just $35 million in 2011.

Why did Facebook soar while MySpace — and other social networking services like Friendster — sank? It allowed people to build real connections using their actual personal information, and rolled out a product that was ready to scale and had good technology. Other companies realized sharing was important too — in 2005, Yahoo SVP Jeff Weiner called sharing “the next chapter of the World Wide Web” — but Facebook was able to implement it in a way that kept users coming back. The site surpassed Yahoo and AOL for “stickiness” in 2009, when Nielsen found users spending an average of four hours and thirty-nine minutes a month on Facebook.

Social has already disrupted some industries — witness the rise of Twitter and the way it has changed the way news is reported, with stories like Osama Bin Laden’s assassination breaking there first. In a sign of the importance of these emerging platforms, newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are launching “Everywhere” initiatives to deliver news to readers where they are already hanging out.

Fast food and music don’t mix

Hard to believe it now, but there was real skepticism that iTunes’ 99-cent songs would be able to compete with peer-to-peer file-sharing services. “According to academics who’ve studied the economics of digital music distribution,” we wrote in 2003, the year iTunes launched, “the cost still seems too high to attract users of peer-to-peer file trading services.” The piece cited an economist who believed “the appropriate price of a downloaded song is 18 cents.” In fact, Real Networks dropped its song prices to $0.49 in an attempt to compete against Apple.

In the end, consumers choose selection and convenience over P2P networks. We called iTunes “a kickstart for the micropayments industry.” Was it? While Steve Jobs said in 2004 that Apple wouldn’t hit its one-year, 100 million songs downloaded goal, global digital music sales crossed $1.1 billion in 2006. In April 2008, Apple surpassed Walmart  as the largest music seller in the United States.

The company that arguably started the digital music revolution — Napster — didn’t survive. Once it no longer offered “free,” it was done, though it tried to reincarnate itself: launching a mobile music service, “Napster To Go,” with AT&T in 2004 (the one smartphone that supported it could hold up to 6 songs), partnering with Circuit City on a digital music store, getting itself acquired by Best Buy in 2008 ,and then being bought back by Rhapsody in 2011. Unfortunately, Rhapsody was already losing out to newer (and free) streaming services like Pandora and Spotify.

The partnerships with Circuit City and Best Buy, though, were probably the kiss of death. One of the big trends of the past 10 years has been brick-and-mortar retail stores’ consistent failure to compete effectively against digital-native companies. Best Buy wasn’t the only retailer to try to crack the digital-content business — and fail: Target and Sears both took a shot. And McDonald’s sold digital content over its WiFi network and even tried DVD rentals in its restaurants.

Do you like the feel of paper?

Just as digital music didn’t really take off until Apple introduced the iPod, the ebook revolution didn’t take place until the arrival of the Kindle. In paidContent’s early years, ebooks were written off as a failure in part because publishers couldn’t figure out what to do with DRM. (In 2003, “temporary electronic ink” that would disappear after a few months was floated as a possible solution.) Barnes & Noble decided to stop selling ebooks in 2003, and Yahoo stopped selling them in 2004.

Meanwhile, Amazon and Google were pushing forward. Google launched Google Print – now called Google Book Search, and still besieged by lawsuits seven years later. Amazon tested two now-defunct programs: Amazon Pages, which allowed customers to buy access to digital copies of select pages from books, and Amazon Upgrade, which bundled print books with online access to the complete work.

Customers weren’t biting. Then Amazon came out with the Kindle in 2007 for $399. Less than two years later, Amazon was selling more Kindle books than print books, and ebooks now make up over 20 percent of some big-six publishers’ sales. Barnes & Noble has had some success with its Nook e-reader and digital bookstore, but bankrupt Borders shuttered all its stores in 2011. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice suit against Apple and five big publishers for allegedly colluding to set e-book prices drags on.

Good thing Steve Jobs looked beyond ringtones

A Forbes survey back in 2002 found that “business professionals” would be willing to pay for “news content to be delivered to their cellular devices,” and some media companies tried early mobile experiments. Verizon offered a cell phone version of the Yellow Pages — which, at $19.95 per year, gained 15,000 subscribers in three months. But starting in 2004, everyone decided the future was in ringtones. A $4 billion global business by the end of the year, one company projected.

So, so many ringtones. You could buy them from Rolling Stone or from an ATM-like device called E2Go. A fall 2004 marketing campaign let you mix your own ringtones on Levi’s website. Billboard launched a top ringtones chart.

Could ringtones “prove to be a passing fad”? we wondered late in 2004. Luckily, yes — a new technology came along to shake up the mobile market. No, it wasn’t the $500 ESPN phone, but the iPhone, which came out in 2007. And by opening its platform up to third-party app developers, Apple got users ready for its next ecosystem-changing device, the iPad, in 2010.

Monetizing mobile

Advertising has always been a fuzzy business — how exactly do you measure engagement and success? Well, that’s still the big debate about advertising in the digital era.  ”If here’s anything that’s really holding back ad spending on the web, it’s the lack of good measurements,” Tim Armstrong, then Google’s VP of national sales, said in 2007.

Mobile advertising has also faced obstacles. In 2006, mobile carriers began allowing advertising despite fears of annoying customers. Customers were indeed annoyed – 79 percent of them found mobile advertising annoying, according to a 2007 Forrester study — but they could “see the potential benefits of mobile advertising and marketing to themselves,” particularly if they could get a useful special offer or coupon.

Further complicating matters for advertisers: The smartphone market is fragmented among different brands — marketers don’t want to spend the money to create different ads for Android and iOS — and there are two mobile ad universes: mobile browser and apps.

Nevertheless, mobile advertising has gained ground, crossing  $1 billion in the U.S. for the first time in 2011, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, totaling $1.6 billion for the year.

The next opportunity is social media advertising. And once again, it will be a challenge to figure out some standardized metrics. What’s a retweet worth, anyways?

Back to where we all began

Though micropayments worked well for music when Apple launched iTunes, the path to payments for written content has been rockier. In 2004, we wrote that “micropayments today are still characterized by a large number of competing transaction types” – including direct-to-bill, merchant aggregation, prepaid accounts and direct transfer – and “each of these face the current incumbent in digital content distribution: the flat-fee subscription model.”

Eight years later, it appears that the subscription model has won out. The iPad opened the door for magazine and newspaper publishers to create new revenue selling content on that platform, but the results have been mixed. When Rupert Murdoch’s “The Daily” iPad newspaper launched in early 2011, the company called it “the model for how stories are told and consumed.” We wrote, “The bet here is that while consumers are less and less likely to reach into their pocket for a few quarters to buy a newspaper, they might not care about the 14 cents on their credit card for a copy of an e-newspaper.” A year and a half later, The Daily has over 100,000 paying subscribers — but it’s living on borrowed time and may not get through the five years its publisher has said it needs to break even.

Writing for the web, of course, has been around for awhile. At the beginning of the decade, blogging was called “nanopublishing,” and the question was how blogs could support themselves doing it. All sorts of models have arisen. For example, Gawker tried a licensing deal with Yahoo, but that relationship ended a year later. The deal “garnered way more attention than we expected, but less traffic,” Gawker CEO Nick Denton said in 2006.

Some bloggers have stayed independent and make a living from advertising (or from their day job); others write their blogs under a newspaper, website or larger magazine’s umbrella — see the Dish’s Andrew Sullivan, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, WaPo’s Ezra Klein. Or, they go to work for the Huffington Post!

Magazine companies have grappled with whether to bundle digital editions with print subscriptions or charge for them separately. Time Inc. — which first put digital editions of its magazines behind AOL’s paywall in 2003 — started out charging separately, but today Time Inc. and Condé Nast print subscribers get the digital edition free. Hearst, meanwhile, is charging separately, and it said its digital business in the U.S. became “solidly profitable” for the first time in 2011.

Could there ever be a Netflix for magazines? Time tried it for print versions with its 2008 Maghound service. It failed, due to a lack of marketing and reader interest. Magazine publishers are trying again with joint venture Next Issue Media.

Many newspaper publishers, most notably the New York Times, tried paywalls at the start of the decade and then abandoned them – only to return to the model in the past couple years.  In its most recent earnings report, the NYT said it has 454,000 digital subscribers. Is that enough to sustain the newspaper in its 21st-century transition?  Probably the best answer to that came from  Vivian Schiller. But it was in response not to the NYT’s recent digital subscriber numbers, but to the NYT’s decision in 2004 to close the paper’s first paywall, known as TimesSelect. Schiller, then the SVP and general manager of NYTimes.com, was asked whether TimesSelect had worked.  “It did work,” she said. “It’s just a matter of as compared to what.”

Birthday cake photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [Robyn Mackenzie].

TV photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [Somchai Buddha].

Zombie hand photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [lineartestpilot].

Piggybank photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [cardiae]

Fast food photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [Sergio Martinez].

Book photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [TrotzOlga].

Ringtones and apps photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [violetkaipa].

Cash register photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [titelio].

Magazines photo courtesy of Shutterstock user [bernashafo].

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room
• How social discovery is transforming entertainment

– All 285 of Press+’s active affiliates have opted for meters over full paywalls. “We now have the data to show that meters are better than old-fashioned paywalls, so it’s become easy to steer publishers to the meter,” Crovitz tells paidContent.The pitch for meter over wall? “With meters, publishers keep all their online ad revenue and readership whereas of course with paywalls there’s a big decline in both.”

– The average Press+ affiliate meter runs 14 page views a month, with the average dropping as publishers stabilize the impact on advertising and traffic. The higher meter limits tend to affect less than 10 percent of users. The lower the meter, the faster subscription revenue grows, according to Crovitz. So far, the highest conversion rates come when a user is offered the reminder to subscribe just before the free access ends.

– New York Times print subs get full access to digital as a value-add but 90 percent of Press+ affiliates are charging print subscribers extra, on average about $2 a month compared to an average of $6.50 a month for digital-only access. So far, according to Press+, print subs aren’t very price sensitive, leading publishers to experiment with higher prices. Some affiliates are trying what Press+ calls an opt-out bundle, combining print and digital in a higher-priced bundle that ups the subscription price — then letting print subs opt out of digital. Press+ claims papers where digital is included for a 10 percent price increase over print, publishers are seeing 90 percent adoption of digital.

Who are these publishers? About 50 companies are represented, including MediaNews, Lee Enterprises (NYSE: LEE), McClatchy (NYSE: MNI), Tribune, GateHouse, and MediaGeneral, along with indies like the Chicago Sun-Times and Omaha World-Herald. The other 30 affiliates include The Onion, non-U.S. papers, magazines, online only.

Of the 285 who have launched so far, 255 are U.S. based. Crovitz says another 185 U.S. papers are set to launch in coming months. They don’t track circulation but Brill estimates about 40 percent of their current affiliates are smaller papers with 25,000 or less print circ.

Does this fill the gap left by the Pew Research Center’s PEJ study? Not really — Press+ is a business offering selective data, not an independent research unit, and it leave individual results and identifiable data to the publishers. But it’s a business with the ability to aggregate increasingly meaningful results from a substantial number of publishers, which in turn can help its own clients and those who choose to go a different way make informed decisions.

I’d like to see more details, like how the income that is being generated fits in with the digital advertising and other non-traditional efforts PEJ addressed in what it says is the first of an ongoing series that will explore digital content revenue eventually. Are the papers that have added meters not only increasing digital revenue but stemming the effective loss PEJ found of $7 print dollars for every digital buck they bring in? How many subscribers are there, how many re-up and how does their engagement with the site change once they’re paying for access? How many publishers will look at the overall results and decide it isn’t worth continuing or will double down? (If you’re a publisher with a meter ticking or another model in play, let’s talk. I’m staci AT paidcontent.org.)

Steve Brill was the first person I heard from Monday after I wrote of my dismay at the lack of paid content data from PEJ. A year ago, when it sold to RR Donnelley (NSDQ: RRD) for what we now know was $19.6 million in cash, Press+ had about 20 affiliate launches. It now has 285 with more coming, likely one reason co-CEOs Brill and Crovitz received $15.3 million from RR Donnelley in their first-year earnout.

“That projection keeps getting higher because there is now an avalanche,” Brill wrote me. “A year ago that number was about 20. Inertia has flipped and become a herd.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise

The deal structure revealed in this week’s 10-K filing shows a payment of $19.6 million (plus $400,000 in cash that came with the company) and a contingent payout — what we call an earnout — of $15.3 million “based on achieving certain volume milestones for Journalism Online’s business following its acquisition by the Company.” The language describes the “prior owners” but only co-presidents Brill and Crovitz went to Donnelley and would be eligible for the additional pay.

That puts the total deal value at $35 million — for now. It might stay capped but my understanding is the deal was structured in a way that would allow for additional pay under certain circumstances that have not been spelled out publicly and could reach the higher end of the originally reported range. While Brill and Crovitz were out publicly selling the concept of Journalism Online and e-commerce product Press+ as possible salvation for newspapers and online news outlets, Chicago-based Donnelley is very quiet about goals and process.

Journalism Online, founded in April 2009, went from startup to exit in just under two years. This past year it went from 20 affiliate launches with various business models ranging from metered pay to donation to more than 200; Crovitz told The Globe and Mail 300 launches already are planned for this year. Customers include McClatchey, Torstar, Postmedia, Media News and Lee.

(Hat tip to Theo Francis for tweeting about the filing and to a reader for bringing it to our attention.)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What the New York Times Can Learn From Rupert Murdoch’s Paywall
• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• Hey, traditional media: You may not need an app for that

Press+, which is owned by RR Donnelley (NSDQ: RRD) and already operates metered paywalls for “grownup” newspapers like the Baltimore Sun and many MediaNews Group and Lee papers, says it is “providing students with a sustainable way to target parents, alumni, and other engaged readers for donations or subscriptions.”

The idea is not to charge college students for access to their own schools’ newspapers, but to get people accessing the websites from outside the college community to pay for access or just throw in a few bucks when they like an article. Press+ is also promoting its offerings for college newspapers as a way for student journalists to learn about career journalism. “This generation needs to find new revenue streams, including new ways to collect revenues from the readers who get the most value from access,” said Press+ co-founder Gordon Crovitz.

The Knight Foundation previously provided nonprofit news sites like ProPublica with grants for Press+ access.

Several college papers are already using paywalls or collecting donations with Press+, including Oklahoma State University’s Daily O’Collegian, which charges non-local readers $10 per year to read more than three articles per month; Syracuse University’s Daily Orange; Boston University’s Daily Free Press; Tufts’ Tufts Daily; UMass-Amherst’s Daily Collegian; the Kansas State Collegian; and the University of Victoria’s Martlet.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Opportunities and challenges for mobile deals
• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• Mobile payments: forecasts, technologies and opportunities

The Times Record News‘s metered paywall is operated by Press+. Starting today, daily print subscribers will receive online access for free, but “limited delivery” print subscribers–who receive the paper on Sundays or weekends only–will be charged $6.45 per month for online access. Non-print subscribers will be charged $9.95 per month.Nonsubscribers can read ten free articles each month before the paywall kicks in. Always-free content is quite limited: emergency alerts, sports scores (for the first three days), obituaries (for the first three days) and funeral notices. And the paper differentiates between “emergency alerts” and developing stories:

A breaking news alert – such as a tornado warning or other threats to the region or a major developing news story – will always run free as a public service, but as the story is developed, it shifts to paid content.

“When there’s something we need everybody to see, such as a snowstorm list of school closings, we can take those parameters off the story and allow it to run for free,” said TRN editor Deanna Watson. “You can still turn to us for breaking news.”

The Times Record News website now generates two million hits a month; the paper’s daily print circulation is 25,000. “The rate at which the website is being used by readers warrants them having a little skin in the game,” Record News publisher Dwayne Bivona said.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What the New York Times Can Learn From Rupert Murdoch’s Paywall
• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise

When you continually take such wide strides in innovation, intentional or unintentional, there will always be casualties. In 2010 alone, Apple held no less than five major media events that in some way affected the way markets were defined and revenues were earned for a significant number of companies.

Dead or Dying Already

This year we have witnessed the fall of HP’s Slate that Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer introduced at CES, a massive shift in consumer purchasing behavior in the netbook market and media moguls struggle with the hard decision between propping up traditional print or adopting newer digital technologies. When it comes to development platforms, Steve was more than willing to speak out and share his thoughts on the subject, while evidence continues to mount that he was right about Adobe Flash on mobile devices. With just one of two new lenses, two consumer markets were affected: the digital snapshot camera and the handheld HD video recorder. I loved my Flip Mino HD video recorder (past tense). With HD video recording capabilities, on-device editing, and the ability to share instantly online, the justification for a separate Flip video recording device just did not make sense any more.

September 2010 Media Event

There is a reason the entire tech industry pauses a moment to see what Steve will say next at these major press events. Many are holding their breath to see if their bottom line will be affected in either a positive or a negative manner. Every time Steve talks, things change. And yesterday’s event was no different. In many ways, the latest media event from Apple will shake more things up than any previous media event yet this year.

Multi-Room Entertainment Systems: AirPlay has some pretty big names backing it including Denon, Marantz, B&W, JBL and iHome. Simply having the ability to stream music simultaneously to multiple rooms could add some serious competition to products like the Sonos Music System, Bose SoundLink, Yamaha MusicCast and Klipsch LightSpeaker to name a few. Apple is potentially cannibalizing its own product by competing with the presently available AirTunes capability of the AirportExpress.

Print Apps in App Store: So what will happen to the sale of printing apps now that Apple will support printing on the iPad? Until we see exactly how printing will work, it is hard to say at this point. But rest assured that consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for specialized printing abilities will be at a minimum. Currently there are more than a dozen apps for the iPad that can print. Many of these are currently priced anywhere from $4.99 to $9.99. These price points will likely drop, as will support for some of the apps simply because the market will shift in this category.

HDR Apps in App Store: Just as the 5.0 MP camera that Apple introduced with the iPhone 4 has likely cut into the sales of casual point and shoot digital cameras, updating the on board camera app supplied with each iPhone will undoubtedly affect the sales of HDR Apps. This includes wonderful Apps like HDR Camera, TrueHDR and Pro HDR. I have tried these apps and I must say that the when the camera is held steady, the results are stunning.

Roku and Boxee media Devices: While the new Apple TV is not revolutionary, the price point sure is. At the magical price point of just $99, it will be hard for any household with iPads, iPhones, iPods and iMacs to refuse. Especially when this device will make it easier than ever to view all of the memories captured, organized and edited with each of those iPads, iPhones, iPods and iMacs. If Apple would ever decide to make MobileMe free to Apple customers again, this one time cost would be easy to justify. Devices like Roku and Boxee now have some serious competition to contend with.

Everyone wants to lead, but just how far out in front is Apple? Can any company, including Google, have as dramatic of an impact across the entire technology industry, each and every time they decide to have their CEO invite the media over for a chat? In fact, it may be a good idea to check with Steve before you make any sudden moves in the tech industry.

So how has Apple affected your life in 2010?