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.
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.
Lexis-Nexis has been doing this for a long time, and making a nice profit. It's not new.
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
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!
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.
"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.
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 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.
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.
"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?
I can't say I care at all about the traditional media companies locking themselves behind barriers. I only read weblogs anyway.
I suppose it might be a self defense manoever for them - it stops them from having to look like complete idiots when some blogger points out they made something up, or spun a story beyond recognition.
As long as you can read maybe three commercial news sources, you can can tell what all the others are saying anyway. Commercial news is designed to package and disseminate the same information to many people, rather than many different kinds of information about the same event. It's a horrible model, and it suffers particularly badly from the "who guards the guardians" syndrome.
I have little or no respect for the traditional media, so here is one person that won't be crying if they decide to marginalise themselves.
Some forms of paid-for news are probably worthwhile, but on the whole I can't help feeling that the weblog phenomenon is the first sign of a drastic change in how people will get their news in the future.
---
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