Would Newspaper Readers Pay for Digital Content?

The newspaper industry has been struggling to figure out how to compensate for declining ad revenues and monetize its content online. Gannett (GCI) announced plans to slash between 1,000 and 2,000 jobs, mostly from its local papers. The money-losing Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times (NYT), yesterday announced "Globe Reader" a new digital version of the newspaper. It's formatted to look like the print edition and can be read online or offline. For now it won't cost extra, but the preview edition will be available only to Globe subscribers. Will it keep subscribers or add new ones? We'll see.

The New York Times also announced that it will expand its digital content service, allowing other newspapers to post and update content even if it hasn't been published first in a print edition. The Times ended its "Times Select" subscriptions a few years ago and now it wants to make sure its generating as much revenue from digital rights as possible. The Times' main revenue source, advertising, continues to be weak. It seems the Gray Lady would be wise to experiment with online subscriptions to compensate for the fact that when it comes to ads, digital dimes are replacing analog dollars.

The Wall Street Journal (NWS) is the poster child for a successful subscription model online, and CEO Rupert Murdoch has said that the company plans to charge for its mobile applications, in time. So now it's trying to figure out whether readers will really pay. The WSJ.com is surveying iPhone users about whether or not they'll be willing to pay. Based on the wording of the question -- "If full access to Mobile Reader required a paid subscription, how likely would you be to subscribe?" -- it seems it's considering offering some mobile content for free, with the full library of content available only through a premium subscription.

The Journal has a lot working in its favor with this venture. By polling its target audience, who are already users of its product, it can figure out exactly the best way to generate incremental revenue from its mobile apps. Is it by including a charge in a higher online subscription fee? A separate mobile charge? Per article? Also, Apple's recent iPhone software update enables the journal (and other app-providers) to easily charge a subscription fee, rather than just charge to download the application. For the sake of the journalism business I hope other newspapers are looking at the potential to charge for mobile content. If people are hooked, and the application really works, people might just pay.

Comments

[RE Broker:]

Newspapers might find more customers for both versions willing to pay if they stopped their liberal bias and just reported the news.

Jul 02 03:17 AM

[donzelion:]

Journalism in the 21st century is undergoing the same revolution as gold prospecting in the 19th/early 20th centuries: instead of looking for the lucky strike or scoop, one needs to blast the nuggets from a lode and convert them into value.

Newspapers survived over the last 50 years mainly from secondary revenue streams (classifieds, personals, comics, sports), each of which linked to specific actions from a consumer (e.g., buy this item, date that person, laugh, buy tickets and watch). Today, they're playing with expanding the content stream (e.g., "click here for more information or to make a donation"), but the real value comes from "news as a persistent campaign" rather than "news as a nugget of information."

I would expect newspapers to gradually disappear, replaced by "bespoke news assistants" who convert streams of data into actionable responses.

Jul 02 04:39 AM

[Spook:]

Speaking from experience, I used to subscribe for NT Times digital version, I read it from my notebook everyday before works begin, one day I forgot to renew my subscription and 10 days later when I renew, NYT only gave me one option, to read it online, no more reading offline.

There are some folks like me who want ownership on what we had paid for, hard disk are cheap nowadays, I can store 2 years worth of newspaper in my notebook without having to worry about disk space, I search back issue to assist my works, this is the value that some of us look for.

Now on reading online and having to pay another for premium search?

Jul 02 05:44 AM

[Philip S. M...:]

I think even a cursory survey of the history of media websites pretty well settles the question of whether people will pay for web content. They won't. However, that's hardly the end of the subject.
It's inevitable that the web will continue to flourish as people indulge their taste for digital content, whatever the latest online fad might be, and its inevitable that the website operators will attempt to satisfy that appetite for free, surviving on various forms of advertising for revenue.
Forget the Wall Street Journal...it's the exception that proves the rule. It provides detailed financial information essential to the creation and enhancement of wealth. People will always pay to get richer.
For everything else, the model that has worked for Google, Yahoo, MSN, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and many, many others will be the model for virtually all websites to come. And, ultimately, this will be good news for newspapers.
Since newspapers aren't going away--no new media has ever replaced old media in the history of the world--they will ultimately need to face the facts of their changed circumstances, drop their websites and get back to what they do best, writing the news and printing it on paper. The income will be more modest, but in an industry that perceived an 8 percent return as obscenely high, only five decades ago, learning to live with less won't mean the end of life, as we know it.
Stripped of their expensive and futile websites, the media companies can finally transform the web boom into the source of revenue have been chasing. They can allow the website entrepreneurs to do what they do best, aggregating large audiences, and they can sell content to them.
The major news services are already doing it, very profitably. More news aggregators will come. Following retailers' "clicks-and-mortar", which expanded the reach of physical stores by linking inventory to the web, newspapers will expand their market, selling news in print locally and reselling it globally.

Jul 02 11:48 AM

[BerkeleyBob:]

I have been an electronic subscriber to the Sacramento Bee, which discontinued distribution of its print version in the Bay Area. I may renew my subscription, but don't find it a totally satisfactory substitute. Reason for continuing is that a couple of its columnists and coverage of state government is superb.

Jul 02 01:54 PM

[User 283977:]

Many Newspapers still don't get it. Their digital versions are just copies of their hard copy versions. That means their digital editions News mostly consist of yesterdays News.

The primary source of newspaper information are the syndicated News services such as AP. Those News feeds are available for free on many websites. If the Newspapers are going to survive they need to provide UNIQUE content beyond re-hashed versions of the syndicated news services feeds.

Jul 02 02:11 PM

[Bobby Rifle:]

So report it with a conservative bias?

If it's "liberal bias" that's killing newspapers, then explain the massive circulation decline for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Explain why Asian newspapers are having trouble: www.google.com/hostedn...

Oh, OF COURSE it has NOTHING to do with "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," nothing to do with the fracturing of all forms of media, nothing to do with rational consumers asking why they should pay for print version when they can the same info for free on the newspaper's website, nothing to do with the mountains of debt newspaper companies took on right before the economy fell off a cliff.

No, it's all about you whining narcissists taking your ball and going home. Of course, you completely refuse to acknowledge how the networks and newspapers (McClatchy's DC bureau mostly excepted) willingly repeated every lie the Bush Administration used to justify Iraq, refuse to acknowledge the fact that the New York Times still can't even bring itself to use the word "torture" to describe what's taken place at Gitmo and Abu Gharib, and refuse to acknowledge how the Washington Post's op-ed pages have become neocon central. Well, at least now I understand why your side actually thinks you're onto a winner with Sarah Palin.

On Jul 02 03:17 AM RE Broker wrote:

> Newspapers might find more customers for both versions willing to
> pay if they stopped their liberal bias and just reported the news.

Jul 02 06:49 PM

[BSexposer:]

I need more hotness (i.e., Julia) on CNBC - let's MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

Jul 06 05:48 PM

[resommam:]

Here's the deal folks. Newspapers will need to start charging for their content in order to provide the same service we've grown accustom to over the years. Nobody works for free in this world and there's value to what newspapers provide each day. That service comes at a cost, and that cost is not supported buy ad dollars alone.

I propose this...

Newspapers should have a free version of the paper in a PDF format for anyone to view. This keeps advertisers happy and still provides a news product for the public. On the flip side they need to charge a small monthly fee for a current daily updated online product.

So what should they charge? I think $7.95 a month is acceptable. Why $7.95? Think about it! Most people spend about $10.00 for a lunch out and somewhere nearly $60 dollars (or more) for their cable bill each month. $7.95 a month is a bargain for updated news, weather alerts, sports, video, obits, classifieds, features, entertainment, legals, local government issues and more. Honestly its a marketing issue and how you spin it to the public.

I know, I know...the horse is outta the barn and you'll never get him back in..right? But when the horse gets hungry or wants to sleep...where does he go? Back to the barn. People will pay if you provide good content.

Bottom line, newspapers are a valuable resource to the community they serve. The paper is a historical daily record of what happens in our lives and our community. Why should people provide this service and not get paid? Free doesn't work for something that has value.

Aug 05 01:08 AM