Tweet
This week, media moguls met to discuss how old media survives or changes in the new media world. Needless to say, they don’t seem like they’re close to "getting it:"
Wired editor Chris Anderson argues in his book ‘Free’ that many companies, with media at the forefront, could build bigger and better businesses around the notion of giving away their content for free.
Many executives in Sun Valley would not agree. ‘Free’ — supported by advertising — is not a new concept. After all, broadcast TV is free but its dominance has been eroded by cable channels and its future as an advertising outlet is bleak.
Newspapers owned by News Corp and others are fervently examining news-bundling pricing models to seek ways to get users to pay to read news online. One consideration may be to bundle different properties along vertical lines, such as business and sports news, for a monthly fee.
Far from free, what media moguls would want to preserve on the Web and mobile platforms is the dual-revenue stream from subscriptions and advertising.
Dual revenue streams sounds fine, but the New York Times was discussing making its online content available only to those why pay $5 a month. That’s not really going to work, at least for me.
I love the New York Times. I get it in my inbox every morning. And I read it. But if I had to pay $5 a month to access its online content, you can bet I’d go elsewhere. The Times isn’t that good.
So I’m not sure subscription-only content is the answer. I wonder how many others here agree with me.
8 Comments
The problem is that subscription money has never been what supports newspapers. It’s always been the advertisers. When the advertisers all went to Craigslist, the business model collapsed.
Do you have a ballpark idea of what proportion of newspaper revenue has come from subscriptions/purchases and what proportion has been advertising? Just thinking of major papers here.
Not only the advertisers but the classifieds were also replaced by Craigslist. That really hurt the papers.
I agree, subscription-only isn’t the answer.
Newspapers need third parties to repackage their content and syndicate it across the web. If they abandon the printing press, the ad revenues alone might help keep them going concerns. Subscription would lower demand, to be sure. A drop in readership means a drop in ad revenues.
Jason, why does paying for content not work for you?
@ Fern: Paying for content online doesn’t work because so very much of that content is available for “free” from other online sources. This is not going to change. The model that WILL work is to package 90% of your content free, and charge a one time fee for that part of your content that is TRULY original. People won’t pay online for AP stories they can get form the feed. They will pay for analysis in their “niche” market, whether that is politics or lawn care. Trying to get people to pay for ACCESS TO YOUR SITE is a good way to lose 99% of your page views.
Yep, @gryphon got it right. I like the Times, but there’s so much other free news out there, I would just drop the Times and go for something else that was free, like the AP or Reuters.