Slashdot Mirror
More Online Publishers Inching Toward Paid Content
mattmcal writes "TheStreet.com reported its first quarterly profit with $18 million of its $26 million in revenues coming from subscriptions. WSJ.com is now up to 686,000 online subscribers. Several publishers have failed to build successful paid models in the past, such as the San Jose Mercury News, but subscription revenue is crucial during ad market dips. More and more publishers are testing these waters now that the evidence of success has become real. Washingtonpost.com and Media Guardian UK both announced recently they will require registration. This may be just the beginning of a mad rush to drop a registration gate on the major news sites."
This may not be a complete disaster, as a it will provide a stimulation to the micropayment technologies, which could be useful to subsidise low cost environments such as open source content projects e.g. wikipedia.
The marginal cost to the really big (Fox, CNN) and/or publicly funded institutions (BBC) of providing web-based news is probably pretty low, and it is effectively a loss leader to bring people into their portal, so there is not really an incentive to charge, so I don't think free general news is disappearing any time soon.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
what money would a newspaper make from giving their whole content for free on the net - it has been proved that advertising on websites is certainly not the best method of advertising available! so obviously as paper gets less and less popular, they are going to have to move to online editions almost exclusively and why not make people pay for the latest news - maybe it's not right from the consumers point of view, but as a business it's all the newspapers can do! Tim
tim
Or, you could just go to the library and read the paper for free.
As someone who reads through news every single day of the year, I'd love an option to offer small payments for content that I specifically want. If I was paying $5.00 for each news article I convert to a PDF, I'd be broke in no time. Slashdot has talked about micropayments before.
Before a content site decides to put up any kind of barrier to getting the content, they'd better make sure the value will drive people past the barrier.
An example comes to mind in the local news scene... I used to visit one of the Web sites for a local TV station as a way to keep informed about local events. Their content was "pretty good" -- better, as I saw it then, than their competitors. Then they started requiring registration... it was free, but they wanted your personal info. I turned away and haven't gone back -- the value of their content was not sufficient to push me past the privacy barrier.
One of the reasons I've been hesitant to use any revenue-related barriers in the Open Music Registry is because I don't think the value would support it, for the site as it is now. So, until I have the time to build in features that people might pay for (if that ever happens), I have to hope for donations and ad click-throughs.
No Laughing Allowed!
However, I'm sure many websites could get away with it either because their target audience has the cash to drop on it, or they need the service bad enough. Like it or not, I'm sure the NYTimes could make their site subscription only (or only if you have a regular paper subscription with them) and people would still sign up.
My grudge with IGN is that they decided to charge for their bad reviews and images/movies. There are god knows how many other gaming sites out there offering the same things for free. And lets face it, gamers don't usually have money to drop on a website subscription (they'd rather put it towards a game).
Some websites decide not to be greedy and have found a near perfect balance of content vs. price. Take www.Freshlymixed.com for example. An excellent site and the best site to download Essential Mixes from Radio 1 on (among other mixes). For signing up for free, you get to use bit torrent and download the three most recent Essentail Mixes, but only on weekends. For paying like, $2/month you get access to their archive whenever you want. There are other payment options too. They decided not to be greedy, and guess what? They're probably making MORE money because of it! There will always be that certain point where if you charge more, you'll make less money because you'll simply get less customers.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
So paid is the way to go but so many registrations, so many usernames, so many passwords and so much content left unread.
It would be neat if there could be a single authentication protocol where one could use the same user/pass (a passport.com like open source or free authentication method) which worked anywhere and which one could tie to any micropayment based payment gateway to read and possibly OWN (in case you visit later) any content you bought at any of the sites.
Lexis-Nexis is an archive site--they don't author news stories.
If you weren't providing revenue for them, why should they care if you stop visiting?
It's nice to pretend that all these sites exist solely for our benefit, but they don't. They have to make money somehow, and if advertising doesn't cut it, how many other options are there?
I appreciate sites like CNN, Yahoo, etc letting me view their content free. But I don't feel that I'm entitled to their content, because, of course I'm not.
Nope,
The newspapers does NOT give all the content away for free on their sites. If you think so then you haven't opened a paper in a long time.
Mostly it is just a small percentage of whats in the paper that makes it to the websites. That and some Reuters feeds, which makes many papers look alike by judging their website.
How this plays out in the future is up to the public at large. If most people aren't actually worried about what information they give away and how much the sites track them then the companies will track them. If most people instead choose the anonymous options then those demanding info will disappear.
I can't decide myself which I prefer. On one hand I'm not particularly worried that the people writing the news know which stories I actually read, cause this will mean that there is more chance of future stories being of interest to me. But on the other hand I sometimes have to don my tinfoil hat and worry about what kind of things they might be infering from my choice in news stories or which jokes I read etc nad who they might share this info with.
Some newsppaper sites have indeed started charging for some of their content. But I don't think that this means a shift back to the subscription model, which never did generate enough revenue to matter. More likely, they want to raise the apparent value of content they syndicate to other newspapers.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll say it again: online content won't succeed until you can pay for it as you consume it. Yes, I mean Micropayments. Lots of pundits have fancy reasons why micropayment can't work, but nobody really knows, because nobody's really tried it.
With daily repeated references to NYT, and almost as frequent references to WashPost, /. story submitters are certainly doing there part to help out the big media cartels.
/. readers will always opt for the blue pill. Some will wake up. Which are you?
No problem. The cartels can't ignore Google. And I can get their stories through Google News. Better yet, virtually none of the media cartels are original anymore. They exist as mere web content providers for AP, UPI, Reuters. Plus a few local/capitol reports thrown in to throw the scent off. The good part about this is if any of the registration sites regurgitate a news story from one of the wires, it is also picked up by thousands of regional and local news sites, the vast majority of which don't require registration. The same goes for the few original "news" pieces they report on. The thousands of other sites pick it up for their local editions, and the content is still available without registering.
Google News is your friend. And the friend of freedom, by freeing information, instead of attempts to control information as it comes out of NYT, WashPost, and others.
And WashPost doesn't render in my browser correctly anyway. The main column is still offset about 800 pixels to the right, forcing me to scroll over.
The only real informational value coming from the NYT and the WashPost anyway is to document the bias of the two outlets, made easier when comparing their headlines, first paragraphs, and top of fold stories against the rest of the media outlets on Google News.
Registration? No biggie. Go here (and read the same story from different sources) for a more balanced view.
Some
I agree. We have no 'right' to get free news and analysis. Providing content takes money - staff have to be paid, bandwidth have to be paid for. If I think I will get a quality service then I am happy to pay (more happy to get it free, but do not expect that)... I am more than happy to provide basic information about myself as an appreciative reader for 'free but registration required' outlets, as I derive a benefit from the service.
Do not expect to get something for free - those places that do benevolently give out information are totally great, but people making a living out of journalism, publishing, etc can't be expected to work for free. Infact those places that do give out information for 'free' deserve more scrutiny (IMHO) as they are more likely to have vested interests in info they give out (e.g. a free nutrition website advocating the Atkins diet which is funded by 'Animal Fat Farmers of America' or a survey of computer security sponsored by Microsoft).
I have some insight into a NYTRG paper and have seen this issue from both sides of the fence.
One of the major issues is management (aren't they always getting in the way). Many papers are still run by people who have no idea how to utilize the internet. When a paper such as the WSJ makes an announcement about subscription revenue, the managers say, "Works for them, so it should work for us, let's fire up the registration servers!"
Unfortunately things that play at a major paper such as the WSJ or the NYT don't awlays translate to success at a small paper.
Im already paying to get online, why should i have to pay for content as well?
We have to suffer thru advertisments already...
If i wanted to pay for content, id buy a f-ing newspaper or magazine.. Something that will actually last for a while, and wont go away or be changed on the publishers whim...
Nickel and diming the internet ( and life in general ) to death..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are important differences between the services offered by the Wall Street Journal online and the Washington Post online that would allow the first to charge a subscription and the second not to. The WSJ offers relatively unique business-specific information and has no close competitors. Their news and analysis are essential to conducting business, at least in the US. By contrast, the Washington Post offers excellent coverage of general news, but with many close substitutes such as the NYT, CNN, and the BBC among others. Some of those competitors unlikely to ever charge an online subscription (CNN, BBC), so the Washington Post can't either (isn't it nice when competition works?)
It's all about demand elasticity. The freely available NYT charges a fee to access their archived articles because those who use that service are typically involved in some research project, and their demand for information is inelastic (not too many substitutes for the NYT's extensive archives). On the other hand, The for-pay WSJ makes its editorial content available for free at opinionjournal.com, because nobody would pay to read editorials; as they say, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I can understand having no regrets to pay for NYT
I can't. I mean, the online version is free. Dunno who he's paying, but they're scamming him nicely...
I have NO REGRETS about paying to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times.
As more and more online content moves toward paid-access, the Internet becomes less like a public library and more like a Barnes & Noble, restricting access to the "haves".
The Internet in the U.S. is already at a level where some "have" level is necessary in order to access it at all, but up until just a few years ago, there was a great deal of promise in the trend to drive that level downward. By reversing the trend, the U.S. buys off on a future of a large uneducated poor and the migration of knowledge-based industries to other countries.
If you run fiber optics and very low cost Internet access into a community, the investment pays off many times over a generation later. India understands this, and just as the U.S. "owned" the 20th century century, India will "own" the 21st century. That U.S. government and its corporations cannot see much further into the future than four or five years, and that U.S. corporations struggle with such fiddly details as to whether to charge for online content instead of considering the larger long-term picture guarantees it.
The belief that just because something is done online makes it profitable is one that many have learned the fallacy of the hard way. The internet makes a great content delivery system for a valid marketable product, but not so great for advertising and definitely not good for cash appearing from nowhere. (Note: most internet ads are for crap products, if they expressed valid product info for decent products I might bite. Same flaw with most advertising though, they appear to assume people are far too impressionable. Almost terrifying to think that they're right in many cases.)
MMV but I for one would not pay for an online newspaper subscription, while I will pay to have a traditional print copy delivered. I'm a stubborn bastard too, I dislike even "free registration required" sites *cough*NYT*cough* unless there is some definite benefit to be gained. Benefit of doubt that such a scenario exists where it would be in my interests to register to even view someone's website. Similar to people that scream bloody murder over "deep linking" and with equal (in)validity IMO.
In response to parent, paying for a Slashdot subscription is a bit of a misnomer. You're basically putting money in the tip jar; the subscriber benefits are nice but nothing ultra-significant. They're just there by way of the PTB thanking those that help out with what I would assume to be a massive bandwidth bill. This is a community site first and always.
I would have no problem paying for News and such content. My major gripe is the lack of pictures and or videos in the news content. Most online news sites rearly have any pictures associated with the news article, and when they do have one or two, they are all nice and small. If these news paper providers gave me well written articles, with decent pictures or size and quality, and give me the opertunity to setup my own "virtual news paper" I could have e-mail to me each day, I would be more than happy to pay. Until then... no.
How this got modded insteresting is astounding. This is flamebait if I ever heard it. There is a reason we have the moderation system on Slashdot. Also, I dread to think what Slashdot would be like without the input of the non-paid accounts. There is so much contribution from these sources that Slashdot would be useless without them. Not to mention your move would silence any person who wanted to remain anonymous. Sometimes popular opinion covers up truth as well, but with our moderation system often times those -1 Troll comments have a gem of wisdom that could get modded up.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Since it seems that so many articles are just reprints from the associated press, there will always will at least one website with a copy of the very same article for free. I say "Let them charge for subscriptions!". I'll go somewhere else. That is the beautiful thing about this crazy World Wide Web.
When you pay your ISP $9.95 per month, you buy a connection to the internet. Your ISP makes no guarantee about what you'll find on the internet. They provide connections, not content. If you're a dedicated Slashdot reader who doesn't visit any other websites, and Slashdot closes down, do you expect your ISP to refund your subscription? Of course not. They didn't promise that Slashdot would be online. They only promised that you would be.
For that matter, why not carry your question in the other direction? Your ISP connects your computer to someone else's content. If you think your ISP fee should entitle you to free content, then shouldn't it also entitle you to a free computer? You might as well say, "I'm already paying to get online. Why should I have to pay Apple for this new PowerBook, too?"
crib
Please don't read my journal
I swear, I'm not trolling. Seriously.
Every time a NYTimes story is posted to Slashdot, it's accompanied by a slew of quips and complaints about registration. In the comments below, myriad people have griped about registration for the LATimes, the Washington Post, and other news sites.
Can someone offer a reasonable explanation why these registrations are so bad? They're not particularly invasive. They're free. They allow random, blatantly false information to be given. So what's the problem?
I think it's amazing that I can read the NYTimes every day, free. Same goes for those other newspapers and websites. If the Wall Street Journal was free, I'd be happy to fork over my name and address to read it online. I don't understand the general objection: You can spend a dollar daily and read it on paper, or you can give your name -- or ANY name -- and read it online free, for years.
How is that a rip-off?
crib
Please don't read my journal
I don't think it's perfect.
It's perfect if you are only interested in headlines and major happenings in the news.
Since articles are ordered by their popularity and placement on their respective news sites, you only get to see what's happening now.
What I like about newspapers are those offbeat stories that are not considered major news. For example: a story that takes an inward view of the hunger in Ethiopia wouldn't make it to the nytimes front page since it is not major news. We all know that their is hunger in Ethiopia, it is not something that has just now been discovered and so not considered as "Breaking News". If i am browsing google news the chance that will run into this article are very slim.
This can also happen with articles regarding literature, arts, history and many other subjects, which for me are marks the boarder between Reporting and Educating.
That why google news is not perfect, for me. Maybe this was not the intention of google news programmers that is why i don't put the fault on them. Google news is still a powerful and informative tool but not perfect.