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.
Or, you could just go to the library and read the paper for free.
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.
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!
"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.
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
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.
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?