My first newspaper subscription was for http://online.wsj.com/home-page and the only reason I paid for it was the fact that my business law professor required it as mandatory. As soon as the class finished and my subscription expired, I ignored all the mails coming in an WSJ envelope even though they were containing the biggest discounts ever for future subcriptions. It was easy enough for me to acces either http://www.nytimes.com/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/ and read the news I was interested in; and all this for FREE.
Now that I'm reading Will Only the Rich Get High Quality News Online? ( http://e-marketingforsensiblefolk.blogspot.com/2010/05/will-only-rich-get-high-quality-news.html), I am actually not surprised the NYT is contemplating imposing a paywall. I would assume that the rationale behind the decision would mainly be that they reached a solid customer base that would follow NYT's news regardless of fees. Is that actually true? Let's not forget that we are not living in the most brilliant economic times. No one will choose smth to pay for if the exact same thing can be found for free. And unfortunately for NYT, there are still many sources online that can provide fair enough news for target customers. Will these sources later on switch to paywalls? Most probably yes but as long as there are no universal fees throughout the web, the majority of customers will go for the "free" news more often than for the "paid" ones.
Another aspect is the quality of the news. Will there be huge discrepancies between "free" news and "paid" news in terms of accuracy and reliability? Most probably yes, but at the same time there are several online sources that can be compared so that the customer can pick the one he/she believes is the most fair one.
I agree with you! I would never pay for newspaper subscriptions unless it was required. There are other sources where I can access intellectual information. For instance, even if all other newspapers try to follow NYT's plan to charge readers (which I think they all will due to the situation in their industry with ad revenue on the large decline) there are other sources like TV news channels and their websites, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ for example.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that they have reached a solid customer base that would be loyal to them and would follow NYT no matter if it is free or they have to pay. I am positive they would not attempt to try this pay-per-read method a second time without having some kind of guarantee that they would profit from it.
I do believe there will be an issue with "free" news and "paid" news. If they go through with their plan, I believe NYT and the others that may follow, are going to try to make the "paid" news seem better, more precise and more valuable than the "unpaid" news. This could create major problems as they may try to belittle the other sources of "free" news and put them in somewhat of a negative light. NYT changing their method can cause alot of unforseen circumstances, some may bepositive and others may be negative.
Profit from paywall? definitely
ReplyDeleteProfit from advertising? definitely
Many reports talk about using simple math to show that paywalls will not work. The reports go on by presuming that paywalls will reduce site traffic (which will occur) but therefore advertising dollars will trickle down. Others say that the lost advertising dollars will be covered by the subscription fees.
I feel that the media giants will profit from the paywalls and will charge advertisers a higher rate to reach a specific "subscription paying" audience.
I myself have a WSJ online account which I paid for only because of a university course mandate, like many others have had too. But if not mandated I would find another content provider to feed me news.
But just like karina said NYT has a strong solid customer base and NYT will exploit it.
Keep on Blogging viaThreads...
I grew up on a different time and I was actually used to pay for things. All of sudden, came the internet and web and a lot of tasks and products become accessible for free. Tasks such as looking for an apartment become faster, accurate and provided us with a “cost avoidance” benefit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I’ve always been skeptical with the word free. I’ve always thought of how companies would be able to provide free products and services and still be competitive. I know that one of the reasons is the flow of advertising from traditional media to the internet and web. Still, would that be enough?
I agree with your comments that other sources may adopt the NYT new strategy if they see it has been a successful one. An example to support your thoughts actually happened in Brazil.
Around 1994, one mall in Brazil started to charge for parking. The same comments we see today about the NYT you would see back them. People tried to boycott the malls’ action but them others started to see it as a very good source of revenue. After a while, all malls started to charge for parking.
As for the quality of news, I post on my blog brzsurfbizz a “Food for thought: Is it really quality news?”
I tend to agree with you, Anamaria, that readers (consumers) more often than not go for whatever is free over something of similar quality/value that costs them money. However, how is it that The Wall Street Journal manages to stay afloat by charging a subscription fee when there is still quality news available for free by news websites, such as msnbc.com and ours truly, the NYT? Could the NYT ever get to a place where it is as financially successful and as highly regarded as the WSJ meanwhile charging a freemium? I guess we will soon find out come next year...
ReplyDelete