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 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.
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.
"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.
Actually, after you get over the extended and intense withdrawl, it will be great.
If you want to wean yourself off slower, you can go to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
And find out what you can get over-the-air in your area.
For the first few weeks, you will find yourself sitting down in front of where the tv used to be and reaching for the remote.. Over and over again.
Sort of like the way a dog salivates when it hears the ring of a bell, or the way a rat pushes the bar when the light goes on it its cage..
I really had a lot of good laughs at myself when I saw how strongly I had been conditioned to watch TV every night. I had assumed that I thought for myself, was not a sheep, blah blah...
But when I found my hand reaching for the (missing) remote of its own will, like the unthinking way you would scratch an itch on your ear..
It was funny, in a scary sort of way.
The other thing you will have to get used to is the intense, condescending *ANGER* that a few people will flame you with when you tell them you don't watch TV.
Speaking of which, I see you have been modded down from a 5 to a 2 just in the time I have been previewing and editing this post
Just the price you have to pay for resisting our TV overlords, I guess.
:^)
"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?