The New York Times announced Wednesday that beginning in 2011 it will charge a flat free for much of its online content. And so the day has finally come. The media world had been abuzz with talks of this new model for some time, but the question of its success still remains. As for The New York Times Company, details about price and reader allowances are yet to be determined. In an article regarding the announcement, printed ironically in their online edition (for free!), NYtimes.com notes that it is "by far the most popular newspaper website in the country." Okay, so this new model may work for The Times giant whose appeal is wide enough to generate new revenue from its millions of frequent readers. But what about local news? Can a pay model work for an online news site with far less readership and highly centralized coverage?
In what was potentially the least scientific study of all time, I decided to answer to answer this question using my sorority list serve. With a whopping nine responses, I'd say I have an appropriate sample to make generalizations about the Ann Arbor community at large. While there was an even divide in the number of people who would be willing to pay for the content on NYtimes.com at all, one trend held true across the board-- no one would be willing to pay for local online news content. Citing reasons ranging from "I prefer the quality of national news" to "Ann Arbor is a whore," the consensus was unanimous.
Now, consider The Huffington Post. A news Web site available solely online, The Huffington Post, had 9.8 million visitors last month-- more than double its December 2008 readership. Here is a national news Web site whose reputation differs from that of NYtimes.com, with most of its content blogged and aggregated. If Arianna Huffington decided to institute a pay wall, would HuffPo's readership decline or would she generate greater revenue? I propose this question in attempts to discern what is unappealing about paying for news sites in Ann Arbor. Is it national coverage that really entices readers, or is it the quality and reputation of long standing newspapers? Furthermore, it forces us to consider if paying content alone provides the content more credibility (if it costs money, it must be good).
Before Ann Arbor news organizations can consider subscription or micro payment profit models, they must ensure a high quality product. According to my minimal feedback, people seem to feel that this value is the missing factor. CNET News.com's Caroline McCarthy said, "The Times will need to find ways to make readers want to pay,"--an idea that transcends all realms of Web content. With a community like Ann Arbor, the potential for a high-quality product is there; however, with diminishing revenues it becomes more difficult to achieve. I certainly wouldn't rule out high quality local news, but for now I'll safely call the notion of a successful payment model for local online content a publisher's distant dream.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you pose a lot of interesting questions within this post. By analyzing this new concept of paying for the NYtimes.com and how that compares to local news sites as well as other free sites available solely online such as the Huffington Post, there is a lot to ponder. While I agree that when consumers pay for a service it is a lot of the time regarded as more credible and valuable than something that is free, I think charging a price for content is going to decrease the amount of readers the NYtimes.com attains. To what extent this is the case will be interesting to find out!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that getting subscribers to pay for local news is going to require a highly innovative business idea, both in terms of the news website's quality and the actual payment model. In response to your question on paying for the Huffington Post, I think people would be especially reluctant to pay for that content because of a distinct difference between actual print newspapers and strictly online content. Soon, there probably won't be a difference between the two, but until that time, I think people will only be willing to pay for websites like the New York Times because it is a traditional news publication. It will be very interesting to see what happens with nytimes.com next year!
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously a very hot-topic issue in journalism-one that I have actually discussed a lot in my Communications 451 Ethics in Journalism class. It is interesting to see the cross-class similarities when it comes to this issue. One good point that was raised in my 451 class is the trickle down effect that would occur if the Times were to fail. In many opinions, including their own, The New York Times is the best news-based newspaper in the world. If it were to fail, the industry would be on the brink of extinction. And I know that it is already at that point, but the Times needs to be around for the sake of the entire newspaper community.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand, I really enjoyed and appreciated the humor that you included in your post; it really livened it up and made it more interesting.