There’s been a lot of chatter recently about newspapers charging for online content, led by media doyen Rupert Murdoch who is pushing the idea of micro-payments.
The San Jose Mercury has climbed on the pay-to-play bandwagon by announcing it’s going to start charging for online content – a move Mike Masnick describes as a “move destined to fail dismally (and quickly)” given there aren’t many compelling reasons for people to read the paper online now for free.
While the Mercury’s move may not work, I wonder whether it’s a sign of things to come within the beleaguered newspaper industry. Over the past few years, newspapers have tried a variety of different models to stay financially viable. They’ve charged for all content; given some content away but charged for access to selected content such as columnists; and they’ve tried completely free content supported by advertising.
To date, nothing has worked to fix a business model that’s been broken by the Web. It hasn’t helped that many newspaper organizations have been hampered by huge amounts of debt, which they have to serve while traditional advertising revenue has declined.
If newspapers want to stick around, it’s obviously they have some very difficult decision to make really soon.
Among them is radically changing their operational structures. They will have to become much smaller with fewer reporters. With a few exceptions (e.g. high-profile columnists), reporters will make less money while being asked to do more.
Many newspapers will have to decide how large of a print foothold they can afford. It may not make economic sense to print and distribute newspapers to anyone in the region who wants one. The National Post, for example, has slashed costs in recent years by abandoning delivery in many cities across Canada.
At the same time, newspapers will also have to keep on exploring new technologies. For example, a device such as the Kindle may have potential to become a user-friendly way for people to consume online newspaper content.
I also think electronic paper has huge potential for newspapers to replace the cost of printing and distributing products made out of dead trees. Imagine how the business would change if you could subsidize the cost of giving consumers e-paper that could receive the news online via wireless or wireline connection.
A final point: While newspapers and the newspaper industry under siege, the reality is many people still get most of their online content from newspapers as opposed to bloggers or online media groups (e.g. Politico, TechCrunch). And newspapers are still providing the fodder that drives the blogosphere, and newspapers still play a key role in our economic and democratic process.
If newspapers disappear, what replaces them? Would the demise of newspapers be anything unlike what happened when the automobile replaced the horse and buggy? For some insight on these questions, The Economist has a must-read feature story. As well, the New York Times has a story, “Pay Walls Alone Won’t Save Newspapers”.
Technorati Tags: newspapers, rupert murdoch, san jose mercury
One Comment
Retarded. All paid content can accomplish is to frustrate and scatter readers and accelerate the re-organization and re-evaluation of news. Is this the best idea the dailies can come up with?
Note that I didn't say death or disappearance of newspapers. They are too useful to die. But they are not as important as they make themselves out to be. This is typical of institutions (and empires, frankly) in decline. Retrenchment. Protectionism. Newspapers today are making the same arguments that Louis XIV and trades under the guild system made 'apres moi, les deluge'. It was not so then and not so now.
Lets face it, the newspaper population needs to be culled, the value of content reconsidered, and dailies need to start thinking about 'how' they present information rather than 'what' they write. Online content is God damn ugly.
<rant>if I see another tech-related Toronto Star article that DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A HYPERLINK I'm going to stop going there, period.</rant>
Question for you Mark, do a quick Twitter scan and tell me how many of the links you see drive people back to newspapers. I'd say my number is about 10% or less. Most of mine land on Mashable or Techcrunch or Hulu or YouTube. Forbes and Financial Post are exceptions, but they are not general news outlets. I'd argue that the AP and Twitter drives most news stories now.
Dailies are already irrelevant to most people under 30. IMO, raising the drawbridge and lowering the portcullis will only isolate papers and accelerate their irrelevance.