[bassplayinMacFiend]

There is one forum where I've been a paid member because I thought the site's value was worth it. I don't pay anymore but I am an unpaid moderator there which balances things out, IMHO.

Being a paid member is not a site requirement, it is 'voluntary' as in you can do most things a paid member can do, except sell stuff in the classifieds and a few other carrots like avatars and increased PM limits.

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb NYT has tried it at least twice before and neither time worked. Tick, tock... 11 more months before they try it again. Not long after they'll probably drop it again.

Well, The Wall Street Journal charges (although differently than the NYT plans to) and they are doing fine. Maybe because they have more to offer.

I am wondering what will happen to the smaller local papers. On one hand they offer the local news that the internet will probably not move into because it only appeals to a small locale (local HS sports, small city council wars, little-league champs, etc...) so there is much less competition for that. On the other hand the other 50% of their content (that is printed) is AP news wire crap that you can get on Google anyway. When they move to the net, they won't have as much appeal... I'm not paying for AP.


JTA

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb NYT has tried it at least twice before and neither time worked. Tick, tock... 11 more months before they try it again. Not long after they'll probably drop it again.

Originally Posted by Banana An aside. I find it interesting that many times, those kind of announcements seldom come with any material information such as how much it will costs, how it will be metered, etc. "We're going to charge a rate next year. That cool with you?" This has failure spelled all over this, I'd think.

I know, I know. As I said though, the difference is that this time it is not a matter of looking to the internet for a bit of extra revenue, it is survival. These outlets, including the NYT in particular, are teetering. The current model of “everything is free” is not sustainable, in my opinion. People who work actually want to get paid.

[Curiousuburb]

Newsday paywall experiment FAIL

In late October, Newsday, the Long Island daily that the Dolans bought for $650 million, put its web site, newsday.com, behind a pay wall. The paper was one of the first non-business newspapers to take the plunge by putting up a pay wall, so in media circles it has been followed with interest. Could its fate be a sign of what others, including The New York Times, might expect? So, three months later, how many people have signed up to pay $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com? The answer: 35 people. As in fewer than three dozen. As in a decent-sized elementary-school class. That astoundingly low figure was revealed in a newsroom-wide meeting last week by publisher Terry Jimenez when a reporter asked how many people had signed up for the site. Mr. Jimenez didn't know the number off the top of his head, so he asked a deputy sitting near him. He replied 35. Michael Amon, a social services reporter, asked for clarification. "I heard you say 35 people," he said, from Newsday's auditorium in Melville. "Is that number correct?" Mr. Jimenez nodded. Hellville, indeed. The web site redesign and relaunch cost the Dolans $4 million, according to Mr. Jimenez. With those 35 people, they've grossed about $9,000. In that time, without question, web traffic has begun to plummet, and, certainly, advertising will follow as well. ... continues ...

One can only hope the same level of success greets Murdoch.

[Banana]

Wow. That newspaper had 'clusterfuck' written all over it. Apparently the pay wall wasn't its only failure since the new owner...

Anyway, in seriousness, my speculation is that eventually they'll just cut back on the efforts of reporting and depend more on local reporting or maybe even on blogosphere to provide most of content. I would be positively impressed if anyone manage to pull off a 'for-fee' subscription to web content in this arena as it's now deeply ingrained in people's mind that it should be free because it's teh INTERWEBS!

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Banana [...] Anyway, in seriousness, my speculation is that eventually they'll just cut back on the efforts of reporting and depend more on local reporting or maybe even on blogosphere to provide most of content. I would be positively impressed if anyone manage to pull off a 'for-fee' subscription to web content in this arena as it's now deeply ingrained in people's mind that it should be free because it's teh INTERWEBS!

Sounds good. It does not matter if in the future we expect people who create, edit and distribute journalistic content to do it for free, because every thing else will be free as well. When journalists head home after putting an unpaid day, they will stop in at the grocery store, load up on steaks, and wave a nice thank you to the staff as they head out the door to their free housing, made comfortable with free heat and electricity, free tv and computer, and free bed. The free model can be extended to everything all of us do and produce, and we will arrive, finally at the long-awaited Utopia. Didn’t Marx predict this as the ultimate stage of human economic development?

[Banana]

I know, I know. I don't doubt this is a serious problem and even if my speculation were correct, it's almost too likely that the quality of news will be worse off. Already some pundits are complaining that too many news agency are copying AP & Reuters without any fact checking. Offloading more works to "semi-reporters" or even "not-really-a-reporter" is going to make this even more worse, and I like quality news, thankyouverymuch.

Right there's a serious disconnect between what we are paying and what we are getting online- we pay for the access but not for the content. Had they reversed the model (e.g. news agency pay the ISPs to provide access to their servers and charge us to read their content), they may have had better chance but that isn't what we have right now. Will people eventually realize they can't have it for free and it was really never free to start with? I would like to think so, but I fear otherwise...

[faust]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb Newsday paywall experiment FAIL One can only hope the same level of success greets Murdoch.

WSJ has 1.2 million paying subscribers

[Curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by faust WSJ has 1.2 million paying subscribers

And a target market for whom timely stock market info = money.

'Niche market' publications like WSJ and the Financial Times and Bloomberg can arguably be set apart from 'general news' sources in much the same way that narrowly specific academic publications can continue to maintain specialist subscription business models while they still control the supply chain for that info.

Once you're outside of the hardcore constituency for your 'proprietary industry info', the paywall model must compete with wider news sources... whether AP/Reuters/Agencies, or local/regional/international television/radio/newspapers, or bloggers and wikileaks, or whatever.
Nobody but tabloids competes for 'first' nowadays other than commenters on /. or Youtube. Dewey Wins!= FAIL! The blowback from getting trolled is too damaging to reputation. (Although retractions are still buried on page 82).
Professional journalists, in my experience, generally prefer to compete for 'most accurate/comprehensive' or 'unbiased' or 'most trenchant analysis'.

Obama's State of the Union can be consumed anywhere in the mediasphere... why pay for it from a closed shop when dozens of other sources have clips, transcripts and/or analysis. C-SPAN, the White House Youtube channel, BBC, etc are all playing on a level field once the content is freely available.

Murdoch cannot succeed with a paywall with information available elsewhere for free.

Exclusivity is the only other driver of traffic (syndication notwithstanding - provided it's within properties that share a paywall)... if the only place to get Woodward & Bernstein, or Calvin & Hobbes, or whatever, is behind the paywall... AND they're the only source... AND meta-comment never cites their work and disseminates it outside the paywall... maybe.

But that's a lot of ifs. And Murdoch has never been known for that kind of quality journalism.

Here in the UK the latest example was when a newspaper bought details of MPs expenses and ran exclusive excerpts of them for weeks, riding the scandal to massive jumps in circulation.
As a result of the public backlash from the story, almost 1 in 6 MPs are to resign or not stand in the next election (due by summer 2010).
Murdoch's papers "didn't see the value in that exclusive" (preferring to focus on reality teevee 'celebs' and Page3 boobs), so the spoils went to the Telegraph instead.

For generic news not in specialist niche markets predisposed to buying early access, the paywall is doomed by free competition, IMO.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Chinney Sounds good. It does not matter if in the future we expect people who create, edit and distribute journalistic content to do it for free, because every thing else will be free as well. When journalists head home after putting an unpaid day, they will stop in at the grocery store, load up on steaks, and wave a nice thank you to the staff as they head out the door to their free housing, made comfortable with free heat and electricity, free tv and computer, and free bed. The free model can be extended to everything all of us do and produce, and we will arrive, finally at the long-awaited Utopia. Didn’t Marx predict this as the ultimate stage of human economic development?

Haven't you ever seen Star Trek?

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb [...] For generic news not in specialist niche markets predisposed to buying early access, the paywall is doomed by free competition, IMO.

Is that a good thing in your view...or neutral/bad, but inevitable? I view the ultimate effect as being negative to the extent that it leads to a decline in quality and even quantity of content.

In respect even just of quantity, I would point, for example, to local news coverage. With the decline in revenue of local papers as online sources* have taken a huge chunk out their revenues, papers have greatly cut back their local coverage. And it is not as if there is any other good source, free or otherwise. Even local TV news is being drastically cut back, as networks try to stop their own bleeding. While government-funded media sometimes can still fill some of the gap, they are not nearly enough: we need more than one source, local news is not their speciality, if they do it at all, and governments are facing their own financial problems.

It's not as though local news was ever of the greatest quality. It was rarely the priority of any media source. But even of middle-level quality, a lot of it is just not there anymore. The local news simply is not being covered in any comprehensive or professional fashion. That is a bad thing.

*Not local online news, but just local online ads - local papers were always heavily reliant on classifieds.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Luca Haven't you ever seen Star Trek?

Marx predicted Star Trek?

[Curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Chinney Is that a good thing in your view...or neutral/bad, but inevitable? I view the ultimate effect as being negative to the extent that it leads to a decline in quality and even quantity of content. In respect even just of quantity, I would point, for example, to local news coverage. With the decline in revenue of local papers as online sources* have taken a huge chunk out their revenues, papers have greatly cut back their local coverage. And it is not as if there is any other good source, free or otherwise. Even local TV news is being drastically cut back, as networks try to stop their own bleeding. While government-funded media sometimes can still fill some of the gap, they are not nearly enough: we need more than one source, local news is not their speciality, if they do it at all, and governments are facing their own financial problems. It's not as though local news was ever of the greatest quality. It was rarely the priority of any media source. But even of middle-level quality, a lot of it is just not there anymore. The local news simply is not being covered in any comprehensive or professional fashion. That is a bad thing. *Not local online news, but just local online ads - local papers were always heavily reliant on classifieds.

I think there are a couple of influences at work, sometimes in concert, sometimes at odds.
I view some outcomes as inevitable... good or bad may depend on which way things tip.

Aggregators may be a business (but I doubt it, as RSS and similar tech allows folks to customize feeds already)... the editorial decisions about "what's fit to print" - that meant one thing in the era of finite pages of newspaper - stopped being about resource choices once online evolved to hold infinite pages... now they are substitutable by good search tools and personal preference. The 'death of editorial oversight' is premature, but the explosion in blogging and non-journalist reporting has already lowered the bar for entry. Any nimrod can play paparazzi or upload commentary. Putting something online doesn't guarantee coverage or ensure you'll get paid for it... so there will still be a market for photo agencies and a gatekeeper function at some level for 'user submitted content' (if only for legal asscovering).

On many levels I lament the loss of professional standards around impartiality and 'journalism' in this rush towards the alleged wisdom in crowds of amateurs.
I turn to BBC or NYT or other respectable and reputable news organizations because they're mainly professional, and have resources and access to policy-makers and news sources that joe public doesn't have.
If I wanted badly-informed opinion, I'd go down to my local pub (or most online comments sections). If I want mockery, I'll put on Jon Stewart.
That's not to say you never find anything worthwhile from 'blog/comment' sources, but the signal to noise ratio is vanishingly small at times.
Quantity up, quality down is bad, but almost inevitable.

Downsizing of formerly bloated organizations and competition from new media or new technology means many old models are doomed.
International bureaus will close [bad, but inevitable] and producers will stick to local or their specialist niche, expecting the non-niche stuff to get picked up everywhere (often by 'free' sources).
The content market for international stories and high profile stuff will get dominated by syndicated agency stuff (AP/Reuters/etc) or government-funded 'free' services (BBC, CBC, PBS, C-SPAN etc).
National and regional news will similarly probably show economies of scale that mean the players with competitive advantage or access will dominate.
At that level, there will be 'niche' outlets that serve particular political views (FOX), or analysis from a specific perspective (Women/Black/Seniors/etc)... choose your filter.
The internet has already been shown to aggravate confirmation bias (people choose what they want to hear and disregard the rest, lie la lie).

'Hyperlocal/niche' content may be a business (specialist niche might be your town, sports team, court docket, industrial process, etc)... some of this may begin as volunteer or done by anoraks or those with an axe to grind, but if it interests them enough it will end up online. Making money from this may be the largest challenge. There are constituencies for all of these niches, but they may not realize the value of this information yet. Or they may rely on a dying subsidy model (local classifieds paying disproportionate bill for local paper) and need a new model to survive. Local businesses still need to advertise, but as traditional models and channels evolve, hyperlocal may become the focus.

Once content is tagged properly (which will take training) we're not far from a future where your iPad (or whatever) can customize news based on your selected feeds of Global stuff, and a menu of Local stuff based within x
kilometers of your GPS location. Local shops will serve coupons or promos as you pass. Vacant lots will display planning applications in 3D. Toilet paper will display political messages and bureaucratic details.

Oh wait... maybe I'm dreaming about that last one.

[cosus]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb And a target market for whom timely stock market info = money. 'Niche market' publications like WSJ and the Financial Times and Bloomberg can arguably be set apart from 'general news' sources in much the same way that narrowly specific academic publications can continue to maintain specialist subscription business models while they still control the supply chain for that info.

Considering the WSJ was the most popular newspaper in america until USA Today began giving it's paper away, I can't call the WSJ "niche". For a financial paper, it's the most esoteric mainstream paper out there.

[quote=Curiousuburb;672860]Newsday paywall experiment FAIL[quote]

I pay 240 dollars for an online periodical. It just matters whether the data is pertinent or just for killing time.

One can only hope the same level of success greets Murdoch.

Well, the WSJ is the only successful paper to go online with a fee. This is all pre-Murdoch. Murdoch wants to make the WSJ, a relatively right winged paper and send it of to fight the NYT.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by cosus Considering the WSJ was the most popular newspaper in america until USA Today began giving it's paper away, I can't call the WSJ "niche". For a financial paper, it's the most esoteric mainstream paper out there.

I'd argue that with their main audience dying or switching to online sources, newspapers in and of themselves are becoming "niche." It's not surprising that the WSJ continues to be popular since I'm sure there's a lot of overlap with typical newspaper readers.

[Curiousuburb]

Popular doesn't impress me.

McDonalds is the most popular restaurant in America.

Eating dung is popular with 100% of flies.

None are appetizing or recommended consumption.

[Curiousuburb]

NYTC reports $20Million in profits after cost-cutting and upswing in online ads

Looks like it might be possible for papers to survive without a paywall

Originally Posted by Guardian.co.uk Signs of a rebound in online advertising helped the New York Times's publisher return to the black with annual profits of $19.9m (£12.7m) for 2009, in the latest indication of a tentative improvement in the fortunes of the badly battered global newspaper industry. The New York Times Company (NYTC), which publishes 18 daily papers including the International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe, said the rate of decline in its advertising revenue slowed towards the end of the year and there were areas of growth in December, particularly in cars, healthcare, packaged goods and telecoms. During the final quarter, overall advertising revenue was down 15%, with a 20% drop in print advertising partly offset by a rise of nearly 11% in digital advertising. Aided by cost cuts, quarterly profits jumped from $27.6m to $90.9m. Chief executive Janet Robinson said: "We were pleased to see advertisers increase their rate of spending across our newspapers, websites and other platforms as advertising trends improved." ... continues ...

[Chinney]

Good news, but that is after cost-cutting that, in the long term, will damage the newspaper. I still think that we lose something through an 'everything is free on the Internet' model. I'll acknowledge that there are benefits too, but in the long run I think that we will have to find a better model than we have now, because I don't think that it is viable. Your long post - and some of the others that have been made in this thread - indicated some of the possibilities.

[ezkcdude]

AP set to charge for news on iPad.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude AP set to charge for news on iPad.

Your link is behind a registration wall. How appropriate! The moment I saw that thing pop up, I was overcome with the urge to close the window entirely rather than registering. I know for a fact that I can find the same article somewhere else on a website that doesn't pester people to register or pay. In fact, I'll do so now.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-...aa7bc.html?x=0

The Associated Presswill begin charging for some news with an application for Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL - news) 's iPad tablet device, making the co-operative the largest news organisation to challenge the assumption that consumers will not pay for general stories. The AP's plans for a paid subscription application, disclosed on Friday by Tom Curley, its chief executive, came as it unveiled a unit to help member newspapers keep up with technology, from eReaders to smartphones. It follows news that the New York Times (NYSE: NYT - news) plans to introduce a charge for online access in 2011, and comments last week that reuters.com would introduce paid services this year. To date, digital pay models have been the preserve of more specialised sites such as ft.com and wsj.com. Consumers were more willing to pay for content on tablet devices than on the web, Jane Seagrave, AP chief revenue officer, said. The AP has charged for some smartphone applications such as its style book, but its core news application, which has been downloaded by 3.5m people since June 2008, has been free. "That will change over time," she said. It means an organisation that describes itself as the backbone of thousands of newspapers and broadcasters will increasingly play up its own brand. "This is not primarily to develop direct-to-consumer products, but that's one of the things we will be doing," Ms Seagrave said, cautioning that the AP planned not to compete with members but to incorporate their content and develop "custom white label" digital products for their use. The unit, called AP Gateway, hopes to pool the time-consuming and costly process of developing new digital products and business models for the AP's network of local media affiliates, which are struggling to do so alone. "For publishers, [2010] likely is the defining moment," Mr Curley told the Colorado Press Association's annual meeting. "We must seize this opportunity to reinvigorate our business models as well as our journalism." He said three years of anthropological research had convinced the AP that publishers must differentiate their content, not add to "information overload". Ms Seagrave would not discuss how the AP and Apple would share revenues or customer information, two sticking points in the iPad maker's negotiations with publishers.

Maybe some people will buy it. I'm sure some people will buy it. But as I demonstrated, the same information will always be available somewhere else for free. Phones, tablets, and netbooks these days don't need apps to access news. They can just pull up a browser and search for it like a computer.

I guess you're paying for the convenience. Using a web browser for everything is like buying a 24-pack of beer, bringing it home, and sticking it in the fridge. Apps are like going to a bar and getting a cold one right away. You pay more but they're more convenient. But even that is changing. Smartphone browsers these days are much better than a couple years ago, and with the iPad's big screen I imagine accessing Google News would be a totally painless (and totally free) experience.

[PKIDelirium]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude AP set to charge for news on iPad.

"You have viewed your 30 days allowance of 1 free article. If you wish to view more, you can register for free by clicking on the button below."

Goddamnit, I can't stand papers that do that. Almost as bad as charging.

[zippy]

^^Same here. It popped up a dialog asking me to register - and even though it's free, I have no interest in creating online account number.... I can't keep track.

[Capella]

I hate that as well. This model is annoying.

[ezkcdude]

Originally Posted by Luca Your link is behind a registration wall. How appropriate! The moment I saw that thing pop up, I was overcome with the urge to close the window entirely rather than registering. I know for a fact that I can find the same article somewhere else on a website that doesn't pester people to register or pay. In fact, I'll do so now.

Totally not planned on my part.

Thanks for finding a free article. Free!!!

[Luca]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Totally not planned on my part. Thanks for finding a free article. Free!!!

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of doing it on purpose. I just thought it was funny.

[ezkcdude]

Originally Posted by Luca Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of doing it on purpose. I just thought it was funny.

No apology necessary. I'm not registered on that site either. Not sure why I was able to read it the first time, but you guys couldn't.

[joveblue]

It told me I could view 1 free article, but then when I clicked "close" to look at the article, instead it redirected me to ft.com/asia

[Luca]

Originally Posted by joveblue It told me I could view 1 free article, but then when I clicked "close" to look at the article, instead it redirected me to ft.com/asia

Funny thing is, when I turned on NoScript, I was able to see the article without any problems. And the article on ft.com was much shorter than the one I found:

The Associated Press will begin charging for some news with an application for Apple’s iPad tablet device, making the co-operative the largest news organisation to challenge the assumption that consumers will not pay for general stories. The AP’s plans for a paid subscription application, disclosed on Friday by Tom Curley, its chief executive, came as it unveiled a unit to help member newspapers keep up with technology, from eReaders to smartphones.

Maybe you get to see the whole thing if you register? But why bother?