Slashdot Mirror


Prepare for the New Paywall Era (theatlantic.com)

Alexis C. Madrigal, writing for The Atlantic: If the recent numbers are any indication, there is a bloodbath in digital media this year. Publishers big and small are coming up short on advertising revenue, even if they are long on traffic. [...] In a print newspaper or a broadcast television station, the content and the distribution of that content are integrated. The big tech platforms split this marriage, doing the distribution for most digital content through Google searches and the Facebook News Feed. And they've taken most of the money: They've "captured the value" of the content at the distribution level. Media companies have no real alternative, nor do they have competitive advertising products to the targeting and scale that Facebook and Google can offer. Facebook and Google need content, but it's all fungible. The recap of a huge investigative blockbuster is just as valuable to Google News as an investigative blockbuster itself. The former might have taken months and costs tens of thousands of dollars, the latter a few hours and the cost of a young journalist's time. That's led many people to the conclusion that supporting rigorous journalism requires some sort of direct financial relationship between publications and readers. Right now, the preferred method is the paywall. The New York Times has one. The Washington Post has one. The Financial Times has one. The Wall Street Journal has one. The New Yorker has one. Wired just announced they'd be building one. (Editor's note: CNN is building a paywall, too.) Many of these efforts have been successful. Publications have figured out how to create the right kinds of porosity for their sites, allowing enough people in to drive scale, but extracting more revenue per reader than advertising could provide.

16 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. It didn't work the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it won't work this time. You're just looking at a ton of closures and maybe some consolidation between whoever is left standing

    1. Re:It didn't work the first time by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'll pay for a hard/dead tree copy of something....

      I don't feel like paying digital. Just seems less of value on digital.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:It didn't work the first time by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't feel like paying digital. Just seems less of value on digital.

      For me it has nothing to do with the value of the content or digital/dead tree. I just don't want to pay for something that I'm accustomed to getting for free even if it's a bargain. Not entirely rational, but that's the 'logic' behind my motivation.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. A problem that has no easy solution by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a problem that needs to be solved. Since copying content has become easy, how do the people who create content get paid? How do news organizations pay reporters to investigate stories?

    There are no easy solutions.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:A problem that has no easy solution by OffTheLip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Evolve that's how. I fail to see how this problem is different than how the printing press put the screws to other means of information dissemination back in the day. Whoever figures out the way ahead will win. I doubt holding your information hostage from readers will be the answer.

    2. Re:A problem that has no easy solution by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is a good idea too. NYT's paywall is $15/mo. I presume Wash. Post is similar.

      This is the current problem with such sites -- that's too expensive. Back when you had to subscribe to newspapers, they didn't cost that much even with the additional expense of printing and distributing physical paper.

  3. Problem by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I may sign up for one subscription, but I'm not going to get $10/month subscriptions for 20 different websites that I occasionally visit.

    1. Re:Problem by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the problem.

      It would be nice if there could be some sort of "online news bundle". Pay $10 a month and have access to a dozen or so newspapers. The system would distribute that $10 as appropriate to the papers depending on which ones I read the most.

      I don't want to have 15 different subscriptions! This is already becoming a problem in the streaming video world, with every company starting its own streaming service. I don't want it to become a problem for newspapers too.

      I have this desire to support the industry but don't want to have so many subscriptions. Find a way to bundle things and I may bite.

    2. Re:Problem by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I may sign up for one subscription, but I'm not going to get $10/month subscriptions for 20 different websites that I occasionally visit.

      The problem isn't really the number of sites, it's the per site cost. I'm willing to get multiple subscriptions, but most websites have a VERY inflated sense of what their content is worth.

    3. Re:Problem by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is bad about having multiple subscriptions?

      I want almost exactly the opposite of you. IMHO, nearly every single "bundle" in my life is a scam, where someone is using something I like to get me to subsidize something I think is lame and worthless. WTF do I care if I'm paying multiple entities? That's easy; we have computers now. The total is probably going to be less, and even if it weren't less, I would almost certainly get more of what I want.

      What you are proposing is to lose all progress made in the last couple decades, and it sounds like I'd fund the people I like less than I do now.

      I want everything as fine-grained and micro-managed by me, as possible. (And just like the billing "problem"(?), we have computers now so what's-possible is going to be damn impressive.) When I "vote with my wallet" I do not want to fucking vote party ticket!! Every time I'm manipulated into doing otherwise, it's with resentment.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  4. Re:Until it backfires ... by edtice1559 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the reason that the internet is devolving is your unwillingness to pay. I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny. I have no idea why anybody would expect to get their news for free. Real journalism is a resource-intensive process that has to be funded. Now I don't *like* the current paywalls in that I often get blocked from content I've paid for since I haven't logged in on a particular device or linked a publisher to a specific account. But having the price for quality news set at zero is nonsensical.

  5. to make it work, go micropayment exchange by swschrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been flogging this horse for maybe 20 years... central micropayments site for the media providers. Joe Surfer makes a deposit. every news site he now hits, there is a deduction to the provider to pay for the posting. why in hell can't they do this, and be assured of a wider, non-PO'ed audience providing cash?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:to make it work, go micropayment exchange by mspohr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jake Surfer here... Not sure I can speak 100% for my brother Joe, but if I have to think, "Gee... I wonder if I'm just gonna get scammed out of half a penny with a bunch of clickbate if I follow this link," you can bet I'd be following a whole lot fewer links. Also, why am I giving someone an interest free loan so they can hold onto my money and deduct some of it for every piece of clickbate I get fed?

      The problem is less lack of payment mechanism and more lack of quality / necessity. There are no shortage of places that provide reliable, relevant news. The supposed "journalistic integrity" that I might be willing to pay for gets eroded a little bit more every time ${majorNewsSite}.com parrots the prevailing party line without even a scrap of effort to contradict obvious lies and policy 180's.

      There will be a lot more digital blood to bathe in before anything of value is lost.

      I agree that clickbait will still be a problem. That's why it's good to support ${majorNewsSite}.
      (BTW, the only ${majorNewsSite} that parrots the prevailing party line that I know of is Fox news. The others have all been branded with Trump's "fake news" label which is a sure sign that they must have spoken some truth to power.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:to make it work, go micropayment exchange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, it's only Fox that does it... The others are bastions of objectivity. Seriously?

  6. Nope, just a simple one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Easy and simple are not the same thing. Easy was letting 3rd party companies manage advertisement sales (and of course get a cut) for the publisher.

    Simple is going back to direct-sales marketing management. Let bloggers and YouTube use 3rd parties, NYT, WaPo, and more should be selling their valuable screen real-estate directly and reaping all the money from that.

    I mean... damn people. Its not complex, just more work. Since the YouTube Adpocalypse many YouTubers have started doing sponsored content (many more than were before all the kerfluffle). Even controversial left- and right-wing vloggers are managing to put together advertising deals to support themselves. And most of them are idiots!

    I've been on about this for years now, because this lack of managing one's own content is terrible for everyone, even investors. 3rd party ad networks are garbage. Advertisers have little control over where their ads are displayed (because its not about the content of the pages, its about the person looking at the page). Content creators have little control over what is advertised on their pages for the exact same reason! And this is the world its leading to, with more and more people choosing to block ads, with more and more "controversies" over ads being shown next to controversial content.

    Paywalls are just a great way to stop growing your audience. Sure, you can cannibalize your existing audience and survive on them for a while, but they are nothing more than life-support for a failing business. Go back to the old ways and find better ways to modernize them. Put people back into the system for a while, and make sure they stay there, because AI is simply not going to catch up anytime soon, and the people running the ad networks care as much about content creators and advertisers as the guy in India cares about any of the 7 corporations in the US he's answering the phone for. Ad networks need to show more, and get more clicks, and to do that, they cheat. Just like that call center in India wants you off the phone as fast as possible to take the next call because they get paid by call volume and no other metric.

  7. Nothing will change. by Alypius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People will continue to read a headline for free, make assumptions based on their beliefs, and convince themselves they know what the article talked about.