Comments on: Paying for online news: Sorry, but the math just doesn’t work.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:41:50 +0000

I won’t even pay $1 a month for Wired Magazine, which is right up my alley, totally rocks as a publication, keeps me informed about cool stuff, feeds me creative ideas, and lets me sound informed at the water cooler. I just don’t have the time to read it, and kissing $12 a year byebye annoys the hell out of me, so no.

And Murdoch thinks I’m going to be willing to pay to read AP reports, or his equivalent? No way.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:36:20 +0000

I think if news sites start charging users will completely avoid it and watch tv news instead which most of them pay monthly fees to cable companies. Tv news rating would be booming. Online users do not just visit one news site, they visit many news sites. I think feed reader like http://newscombined.com will help some users read just the headlines.

By: Seven reasons charging for content won’t work « Transforming the Gaz

Seven reasons charging for content won’t work « Transforming the Gaz — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:04:58 +0000

[...] fall faster than subscription revenue will rise if news sites start charging for their content. Martin Langeveld has already done the math on [...]

By: Clinging to a dead biz model for dear life | News Fu

Clinging to a dead biz model for dear life | News Fu — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:07:15 +0000

[...] lose the vast majority of their readership, while their new subscription revenues would come nowhere near what they’d need to continue supporting their legacy [...]

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:07:15 +0000

Putting a fence around content is like putting a fence in the ocean. I just don’t see it. No matter what Congress does. On the other hand outdated anti-monopoly laws will probably be changed. It’s just not the answer for content creators.

By: Cec

Cec — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:43:29 +0000

I found the article “Is the Free Web About to Expire?” on PCMag.com which elaborates a bit more on the same concept if I understand it right.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2346956,00.asp

Brief extract:
“…newspapers actually do get their act together, convince Congress to loosen monopoly laws, and then work in concert to create a fixed online menu of content prices. With all this once-free content behind a pay gate, one would assume that smaller news sites and blogs—even citizen journalists—would fill the free gap. Not so fast. The safety nets provided by companies with deep pockets and the patience to let a platform build its revenue base are no more…”

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:46:54 +0000

Cec, the problem is “This consortium could also negotiate special deals directly with the internet service providers, shutting off those ISPs which do not accept the model.”

The power player is the internet. Newspapers can’t force the internet to do anything.

By: Cec

Cec — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:21:16 +0000

I believe that a single newspaper will rarely manage to convert a significant portion of its online readers into paying users.
There can be exceptions in case of highly respected brands like WSJ or FT which in theory provide “unique” content, but the average newspaper will not be able to convince its readers to pay for content which can be found elsewhere for free.

On the other hand what would happen if all the newspapers would create a consortium and sell subscriptions jointly?

It could be a bit like a cable TV bundle where, instead of a bundle of film channels to be watched on TV, we would have a bundle of online newspapers to be read on the web.
This consortium could also negotiate special deals directly with the internet service providers, shutting off those ISPs which do not accept the model.
ISPs could embrace the model because it could bring them additional revenues, since they could be the prime sales channel of the subscriptions and keep a share of the transactions.
It is probably a crazy idea (very very difficult to implement), but I would like to hear some comments about it.

By: Internet efter gratis-eran – exklusivt, svindyrt och mötesorienterat? « Nils Holmlöv

Sun, 10 May 2009 15:05:00 +0000

[...] med gratisluncher – igen. Och visst är det så att i slutändan måste ju någon betala. Men betalda prenumerationer kommer inte att fungera i framtiden heller enligt Martin Langewald (Nieman Journalism Lab, Harvard). Även med generösa antaganden om hur [...]

By: Traditional Media and the Internet – Part 5 « Lactose-Free Thoughts

Traditional Media and the Internet – Part 5 « Lactose-Free Thoughts — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:39:54 +0000

[...] piece from the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University argues that the fee-for-content model won’t work because readers simply won’t pay prices that are high enough to significantly increase [...]

By: Martin Langeveld

Martin Langeveld — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:06:29 +0000

Michael, I wrote: “…they may be able to charge for some very high-value content that goes beyond their core site offerings…” So I agree with you — it needs to be new, high value, incremental content. One way to start: instead of burying content forever in archives priced at $3.95 per article, hard for users to find and generating very few sales, why not sell a $3.95 monthly subscription providing unlimited archive access, and offer links to relevant archive stories with every current story. (Hyperlinked inside stories, even!) Then add access to other extras — photo and video archives and outtakes, full interview transcripts, and the more niche-y content you suggest, which could include things people are willing to pay for elsewhere: a weight-loss site and online cooking lessons from local chefs come to mind.

By: Michael Andersen

Michael Andersen — Sun, 03 May 2009 04:28:29 +0000

So I’ve all the comments on this first-rate post, and I have to observe that everybody, including Martin, seems to be making an assumption: that the only content that might be placed behind the pay wall would be some sort of content already offered by newspapers.

Wouldn’t it make much more sense to create new varieties of niche-y stuff, then put that behind the pay wall?

Wouldn’t that totally shake up this Etch-a-Sketch?

By: Online Newspaper Charges « Usability and Common Sense Go Hand in Hand Blog

Online Newspaper Charges « Usability and Common Sense Go Hand in Hand Blog — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:59:32 +0000

[...] There’s a fantastic article here that destroys the argument that charges would cover the cost of lost advertising revenue: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/paying-for-online-news-sorry-but-the-math-just-doesnt-work/ [...]

By: Subscription? « Sean Versus Online Journalism

Subscription? « Sean Versus Online Journalism — Fri, 01 May 2009 01:51:47 +0000

[...] in the the Nieman Journalism Lab Blog, Martin Langeveld tries to make the case that the more they charge, the less money the newspaper [...]

By: NewBizNews: Paid content models « BuzzMachine

NewBizNews: Paid content models « BuzzMachine — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:37:03 +0000

[...] other back-of-envelope calculations of paid content’s value by Martin Langeveld and Jeff Mignon and Nancy Wang. Anyone know of others? We’d also like to aggregate [...]