Howard, could part of the problem be that because consumers already pay for online access that we don't also want to pay for online content. I spend $50/month for online access. I can't see myself paying any additional $ for online content. To say that everything online is free is not quite accurate. It's just that the service providers are the ones making the money, not the content providers.Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.
Howard Kurtz: Fair point. Everyone pays for Internet access. But that's like saying you already paid to buy a TV set, so why should you now have to pay for cable? (And look, some people don't.) I grew up thinking television would always be free, and now people pay cable providers--and pay extra for premium channels--because they think the content is worth it. Computers and online access aren't cheap, but content also costs money, and iTunes is but one example of how people are willing to pay for what's important to them.
The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.
What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.
I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.
iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.
I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.
1 comment:
Very good point.
And you know how they shouldn't save money? By firing all of the good copy editors- because reading the post lately has become painful due to typos, misspellings and grammatical errors.
I think they should charge to sign in. Like you can get all the content free but you have to pay to participate in the forums and to leave comments. At the very least that may cut out the bulk of the god awful commenting.
Speaking of copy editing ;-): I have been informed that I am required to take an english lit course. I will be taking it this fall, would you be opposed for looking over my papers if I send them to you uber early?
Post a Comment