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."
I have NO REGRETS about paying to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times.
The extra features I get as a Slashdot subscriber are well worth the cost, and getting the Times news fresh every morning with my cup of coffee is unbeatable. I love their fresh angle on each news story, and really appreciate the Editorials page.
Count me in, America - I'm a happy online news subscriber - and lovin' it!
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
I have definitely been noticing this trend and I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't seem there is very much I can do about it apart from abandoning some web sites that are not too essential.
For example, I haven't gone to www.washingtonpost.com since they introduced their new "super-nosy" registration policy (and I used to go there almost every day). On some other web sites I give fake information(OK this doesn't really solve anything, but dammit I am not going to let them win...)
In any case, I can easily forsee the day when there won't be any "free" news sites that do not require registration. Except the Onion. There will always be the Onion. (Knock on Wood...).
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
For those of us who hate to spend gazillions of dollars on newspaper subscriptions, and want to get the content on paper for free online, only to watch publishers lock up their content to require payment yet again, I have a proposal.
Just step away from free, and turn it into cheaper. For example, you give xyz newspaper $10 as a deposit. At any time you can opt to buy today's online content of that newspaper (or other online content) for $0.50. It gets you the rights to the entire content for the day, and maybe even a PDF you can download and read/print offline. This way you don't pay outrageous prices for subscriptions to memberships and read what you want. Thoughts?
...in bed
While I agree that Slashdotters in general are way to up on their horses about free as in beer when it comes to digital sources, I'm not a huge fan of paying for an on-line Washington Post. I already subscribe to the printed version, but use the website for up to date information.
Now if they could somehow extend my print subscription into an on-line subscription too, I'd be all for that. But then again, for a media giant like the Post, you would think they would have the money to maintain a free news site.
Not to mention the "freedom of the press" bit they jump on whenever it suits their purposes. I always thought the reason behind this was to get information to the people. Adding subscription costs to an on-line site pulls it out of reach from the less fortunate.
i think online media is cheaper than the printed media, and more environment friendly as well. and if if we have to pay a little bit to get online news, it is not that bad.
you can buy e-books and audio books that are cheaper than printed books. on itunes you can buy radio show, to listen at your leisure
So, what is wrong with paying a little bit money to read the news that your own leisure
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
It's a nice way for higher-quality pubs to maintain their offerings, but they should expect some heat over the equal-access problem that paid content creates. If it's a choice between existing and not existing, then a quality site should offer subscriptions. But neither time nor bandwidth are free (unless you use a trojan to hijack some Windows box), and paid content is a fair way to get a return on an investment.
Still, just as there's a movement to give net access to low-bandwidth users in developing countries, perhaps there should be a similar push for content availability that is stratified by country.
This is definitely a chance to put Microsoft's Passport system to work. Here's the idea; put your credit card number into passport and then when you go to a news site and want to read an article; $0.10 is deducted from your cc/passport account. I can't wait to see their passport system working for something that is actually useful; as opposed to just using it on their sites (msn/hotmail/microsoft.com).
is just going to widen the "digital divide". This might work great in europe/u.s., where you all have your fancy electronic bank accounts, but us broke MOFO's? in countries where there is no infastructure for this will be further pushed aside. I guess I'll be depending on the "pirates" to copy some info to a free site somewhere.
What?
Untily relatively recently, I enjoyed Google News. I broke down and did the free reg. at NYTimes, but then Washington Post and the LA Times started it: now Charlotte.com and Bum-Fouck Iowa are getting in on the act.
I simply refuse to read those papers, and have basically stopped using Google News. When will these people learn that the only reason we use their content is the pleasure of it -- and we aren't stupid. When they try to turn us into cattle or eyeballs, we bolt.
I fully expect everything that doesn't suck now to start sucking soon. On a related note, I am planning to cancel my cable soon. It will soon be $60/month for just basic cable.
I just won't watch TV. It will suck, but I will adjust. I am not a slave.
..of where a paid content system and a free content system work flawlessly together. Internet users tend not to invest in a service/website unless they have an incentive. In fark.com's case they offer access to all submitted links and no ads. All in all the best way to entice people to pay for content is to give them a reaonable amount of functionality under a free membership. If they enjoy your free content many will tend to become paid subscribers later on.
It's been said before, but I think it's important to stress the necessity of a pay per content / service model.
Most classical online ads; whether banners or popups don't pay off, and while some people still live with the mindset of free information for all, there's a limit to the quality and quantity you can produce without profits.
A feasible business model:
It's necessary to reorganize and produce quality information in such a way that it separates itself from the bulk and becomes valuable. When you do that, you can charge people for it - and you'll need to, because quality content requires professionals [whether journalists, consultants, counselors, programmers etc. ].
What about ads?
I used to be doing online adverts, and while advertising won't disappear, I am convinced that it will change it's nature, moving towards an interval-between-content model like the one we have on TV. As a user you'll be able to pay to avoid them in available subscription packages:
As web-content becomes more media intensive, in terms of streaming - I suspect we will see complex interactive adverts targeted at users based on profiles. I foresee "pay-per-view" media-service packages that range from the-premium-no-ads-in-movies, news, games-offer, to "free" content with ad-intervals.
What are your thoughts on/experiences with current e-payment models? (paypal, micropayments etc).
As an entrepreneur, I'd appreciate any info.
Finally - to quote the blues brothers: What do ya want for nothing? Rubber buiscuit?
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
"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."
If nothing else, there's Yahoo!. I notice that Yahoo! carries content from LA Times and the Washington Post, among others, so I'm able to access their content registration-free via Yahoo!. So that's where I've been reading the most lately -- particularly using Yahoo! news' RSS feed and a newsreader software.
With declining readership with newspapers, along with lower-than-originally-thought payments from advertising, however -- so-called "premium" content -- the really valuable news -- will probably end up being for-pay. In other words, I think you're going to see more pay content on the web because people are abandoning dead-tree media.
I've been involved with two pay sites. The first is financial site The Motley Fool, the second is a college sports recruiting-news site, Rivals.com. I think that both sites' pay services illustrate really well the extremes of the pay-site model.
In the former case, The Motley Fool made their bulletin boards into part of their pay service. Their actual home-generated content remained free. This struck me as being a horrible decision, because the value of the boards was provided by the posters who contributed information and advice on the boards -- they were, in fact, trying to reduce traffic to their boards. If I'm going to be contributing value to their boards, I should get paid for it -- not the other way around. I found the move to pay offensive, and quit.
Rivals.com (specifically texas.rivals.com) is the opposite story. I am a college football junkie, and Geoff Ketchum, who runs the Texas Longhorns board is a true journalist -- the kind who actually works for a living, rather than just barfing up whatever PR he happens to receive or reporting every rumor that he hears as fact. For just five bucks a month, I get information that no one else gets, and I typically hear about the big stories long before anyone else does. There are two regular columns each week that are stuffed with things nobody else knows about, plus constant reports on the latest high-profile recruits, where they want to go, etc.
Jesus, I sound like an ad. Well, it's because I'm very happy to spend the money for the content, because the content has value -- I can't get it anywhere else -- and it's something very specific that interests me.
So, the summary of what I'm trying to say here is this: The move to pay is necessary for some folks who either can't afford to go to print, or who are losing income from print publications, because the internet ad model has proven to be not very good. And people will pay for sites that generate valuable content, but they won't pay just to participate in "communities."
To me, it actually seems like an improvement.
I have a hunch what we're seeing, especially in the case of the WSJ, is that people that previously subscribed to the print version of the paper are migrating to the online content for convenience.
The real question is can they attract new customers to pay for online content, as opposed to shifting existing customers from one type of media to another.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
This kinda reminds me of AOL's inflated subscription numbers because they were giving out free months to people who'd call to cancel.
I don't think mandatory/discounted/student/group subscriptions should be counted in this figure.
What I object to is news organizations that gather information in the name of the public good or the "public's right to know," then put up barriers to public access to that information.
Which is it, guys? If you want to use my name to make your bones, then you gotta share the benis.
I go out and spend around $20 a month on magazines, usually cars or 4x4's. I've enjoyed the magazine format for years now except for a couple of things.
If you miss on issue and they have a project broke up over multiple months it costs a lot to back order a copy and it is a hassle.
After getting 2 or 3 magazines a month for a few years you end up with a huge pile that I want to keep the information in but I don't really want to devote part of my library to.
I see some subscription based websites that mimic the magazine format but none of the big names are doing it and non of the small guys post up as much as I'd get in a magazine.
I'd be willing to pay for an online subscription to something like SCC so long as it has every bit on information thats in the printed version. This includes the Ads. I hate popups, but I do browse the parts ads on a regular basis so make sure they're in there. Hell charge the advertiser more and make the ads a link the companies site, that would be useful.
I also want the archive from the day you go online accessible. I won't accept just being able to get this months and thats it.
Everything also has to be in a standard format. PDF or HTML is fine, some encrypted format that is windows only and requires a special viewer and the deal is off.
What I'm not willing to pay money for is hacked down versions that show 3 out of 10 stories.
At least in the world of free books (as opposed to free newspaper articles, which I don't know much about), I think the general trend is toward more freedom -- my catalog has certainly grown greatly over the last few years. I think it's a lot like Linux invading the desktop: when the percentages are small, it's easy to get double-digit growth in a year.
It is frustrating to see free stuff go away, though. That's why I think it's so important for people to put their writing under a Creative Commons license. Free-as-in-speech is forever. Free-as-in-beer is like the hooker who doesn't remember your name the next weekend.
Find free books.
" i think online media is cheaper than the printed media,"
I think that the sky is green, but facts sometimes mess that up.
NY Times and Wash Post are cheaper now, only because they're free. But in actual fact, when you subscribe to the washington post, if you buy Sundays at a discount, then the rest of the week is free. So you pay somewhere around $50 a year (more or less) for the wash post.
But wait...when you get the print edition, the sunday paper has ads and coupons that can easily pay the cost of the paper. Online... nothing.
So the economics of online will never make it cheaper than actual newsprint.
Another example is online magazines. I can subscribe to the print version of most magazines for $13/year or under. Not so for the online versions; they will typically cost 2x or 3x that amount.
That's why outside of the WSJ (a special interest newspaper), there is no successful pay-per-view or subscription general interest newspaper. The economics arne't there and they probably never will be.
If MSN and Yahoo are free, then you'd better be pretty special to charge. NYTimes and WashPost aren't special enough.
"What somebody should do is come up with an standardized anonymous way to pay for things, just like a prepaid phone card."
Sorry, no longer allowed in the US--I'm not joking. There used to be some options like this, but now they all have to be verified with a SS number (aptly named for the future, perhaps).
In a country where the definition of "financial institution" has been expanded to include casinos and pawn shops (and thus allow warrantless examination of their customer records), anonymity in commerce is a rapidly dying right. And if you demand it, well, then what kind of evildoer are you--a terrorist, child porn addict or drug dealer?
- Must be value for money
- must not include advertising
- must not ever infringe on my privacy
- Must be value for money (seriously, it's worth saying several times)
Anyone surreptitionsly following my surfing habits will see a very clear pattern emerging- sites with advertising filtered by my ad/popup blocker get return visits (assuming they have good content)
- sites which successfully bypass my filters never see me again
- sites which require me to register never see me again (unless I can screw their database, like NYTimes)
- Sites with stuff I *really* want that I can't get elsewhere for free (or that provide significant value *over* free), I subscribe to (eg FilePlanet, paid email service, etc)
It's surprising how difficult online content providers find understanding the most basic of facts. PISS of your customers and they won't return. The ever-more-annoying and in-your-face Advertising model just doesn't work. (Phear My Filters)I'm not unreasonable, I'd happily pay fair-value for good content, all I ask in return is
- MicroPayments
- Security
- Privacy
- Zero advertising
- Value For Money
- Value For Money
- Value For Money (seriously, it's worth asking for several times, they're NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE)
An example given earlier of $5 for an article isn't value for money, it's a ripoff. Even if it is "archived". Geez man, everyone who *really wanted* your article got it when it was current, additional "sales" now would have to be pure profit - your entire DeadTrees publication costs what , $5.75 a week (eg NYTimes DeadTrees Edition)? And you wanna charge me $5 an article, electronic delivery?How do companies who list "customer goodwill" as a line item on their company valuations balance that against actively screwing their customers (privacy violations, information-highway-robbery) and doing their best to just plain piss them off (guerilla advertising campaigns) in the online world?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It costs them to make, they charge ad space in paper to make a profit. Why should on-line be any different?
A hypothetical example.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Internet News versus Paper News
.50 cents or less, per article.
First, hosting a website that is visted by a large audience is not cheap. Plus, you have to pay people to add content to the website. The marketing department is going after add revenu. Add to this the IT staff that's necessary for all things regarding the web site in general, and poof! It's $75,000 a month.
But yes, it's cheaper then paper. But does that company care? I doubt it.
The problem that I run into is that I have a small place. I can't possibly keep stacks of printed media around. In order for me to feed my news habit (which is partially based on business plans), I need to archive some 25+ articles a week. I'd gladly pay the cost of a daily newspaper for those articles.
Not to mention the News sites that don't exist on the printed medium. Salon being one of those, and I stopped reading them 2 years ago, because of their blanket subscription plan.
I'm happy to admit I've finally subscribed to Slashdot. It's working out great. Not only can I control what news I see, but also give something back to a site I've been crazy about for years. And if it wasn't for Slashdot, I'd have to go HUNTING around for half the articles I archive.
Slashdots subscription plan is one form of micropayment that I think would work well for major News sites. X number of page loads for x price.
As for other types of content driven web sites, the same subscription would probably work, as would one that charged a small amount
Just my 2 cents!
I subscribe to the print edition of the Los Angeles Times. My last bill was for twenty dollars, and $15.95 of that was for "transportation costs", which aren't an issue for on-line services. Is my other $4.05 keeping the paper afloat? No, they get all their profits from ad revenues.
The only on-line media that will need to charge subscription fees are those with content tailored to niche markets. Those with a mass appeal, like newspapers, I think will be able to support themselves off the ad model, which is only going to become more profitable as more and more people get on-line.