Comments on: Could one answer to paid content be found in a bottle of water?

By: Trierer Medienblog » Blog Archiv » Zahlt endlich!

Trierer Medienblog » Blog Archiv » Zahlt endlich! — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:28:45 +0000

[...] Nieman Journalism Lab stellt Tim Windsor die Frage: Wie schafft man es, für etwas das frei verfügbar ist, ein solches [...]

By: Zitat der Woche (KW 23) | relevant media. now.

Zitat der Woche (KW 23) | relevant media. now. — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:40:15 +0000

[...] NiemanJounalismLab geht der Frage nach, warum Menschen viel Geld für Mineralwasser in Flaschen ausgeben, wo doch der [...]

By: Kathlyn Clore » Blog Archive » Like water in the bottle, these are the stories of our lives … ?

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:51:09 +0000

[...] Tim Windsor of Nieman Journalism Lab wondered if news content online could be monetized in the same way water has been monetized. After all, [...]

By: Mass audience for news is dead | Save the Media

Mass audience for news is dead | Save the Media — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:34:32 +0000

[...] I blogged about Tim Windsor’s question on the Nieman Journalism Lab blog about whether online news content is like bottled water. He asked how bottled water companies could essentially sell something most people in [...]

By: Could one answer to paid content be found in a bottle of water? « Fire EXIT

Could one answer to paid content be found in a bottle of water? « Fire EXIT — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:44:05 +0000

[...] 11:43:55 μμ on Μαΐου 31, 2009 | # | 0 Tags:Media Could one answer to paid content be found in a bottle of water? [...]

By: Worte zum Wochenende « Real Virtuality

Worte zum Wochenende « Real Virtuality — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:53:01 +0000

[...] Windsor, Nieman Journalism Lab // Could One Answer to Paid Content be Found in a Bottle of Water Wozu der ganze Aufwand, wenn bei Sat.1 doch noch so viele Serienideen rumliegen, die dort keiner [...]

By: Digital Media Buzz - Could one answer to paid content be found in a bottle of water? | Digital Media Buzz

Thu, 28 May 2009 13:25:47 +0000

[...] Is news content gasoline, or is it bottled water? That is, is online news a necessary commodity that people will begrudgingly pay for, because they have to, or is it a necessary commodity that’s packaged in a way that finds a happy and willing customer base?…….[read entire article] [...]

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:13:06 +0000

Bonnie,
Your points are well taken if the focus is the web. You are spot on with no convenience advantage. However printed newspapers win on convenience in the physical world. The very fact of their ease of disposable and the no risk of losing or damaging gives them the advantage over any e-reader. Once paper becomes connected to wireless via cell phones the remaining speed and non measurability disadvantage goes away.

I think the water metaphor is just right. The value is convenience. The perception of value is about “people like us” drink Perrier etc etc.

Likewise the value of print is sharing and convenience. The perceived value is “people like us” read the New York Times or the “Smalltown Courier.” or the “High School Times.” An under appreciated function of print is to create in a community a more open and flexible notion of “people like us.”

By: Bonnie Bucqueroux

Bonnie Bucqueroux — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:25:22 +0000

People buy bottled water for two main reasons – the erroneous perception it’s better/safer and because of convenience(public facilities no longer offer water fountains as they once did). First, it will be interesting to see what happens to sales of bottled water as people begin to realize how environmentally unsound the practice is (and that it’s not safer). Concerning news, the “better” argument is dubious in an era when even the New York Times continues to miss or misreport on the biggest stories of the day (weapons of mass destruction, the current financial meltdown). Second, the convenience article doesn’t apply. It’s as easy to click on a competing online publication as it is the print newspaper competing online. And working against newspapers is that they continue to misunderstand the web. There is an ethos about information being free that runs deep. It is also annoying to have to sign up and type in credit card data time after time for new products when competitors are willing to trim budgets to live on what advertising can provide. The only model is value-added – sell me a special membership where I get a t-shirt and a “press pass.” But force me to pay for what others will give me for free is a bad strategy. The danger in a model of paying for premium content is that it walls off your best stuff from groups like college students, your future consumers. Give it up, guy. Move out of those marble buildings downtown. Pay people from the neighborhoods freelance rates to report on the communities they know. Dump your print version of the paper – ecologically unsound and you are funding your own competition. That kind of old thinking is killing you.

By: EP

EP — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:05:48 +0000

And yet, people do pay to attend higher education institutions, and scholars of all disciplines have to pay to read online journals and even to publish books (or their institutions do). People pay to attend conferences. Granted, there are other values added to these beyond information (a lot of people think that “networking” is more important than any “abstract” knowledge obtained).

We don’t live yet in a society in which all types of information are free.

A very obvious strategy is to deliver different kinds of news on different formats. So you get something online, something different on the paper. You want what is on the paper? You have to pay for it.

I know this has been and is being tried, but I don’t know how successful it has been.

I do pay to read the newspaper. Not every day. But I do. There must be more people out there who do. Unless Americans, of all peoples in the Earth have decided to stop paying for anything.

By: Water or news – which has more value? « Technocurious’s Blog

Water or news – which has more value? « Technocurious’s Blog — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:40:58 +0000

[...] by technocurious on May 26, 2009 An article on the Nieman Journalism Lab web site surmises that the path to understanding how to charge for news [...]

By: Fred Faulkner

Fred Faulkner — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:37:03 +0000

Rick,
Interesting that you equate value with something physical. I guess this points to the unfortunate truth that we don’t “value” news/information that causes us to “think.”

I can only “hold” that idea in my brain. Hopefully I can “use” it for something that benefits me or others. But typically that does not result in “immediate gratification.”

Maybe that’s the real difference – the timing on the satisfaction and payback for the investment. Since we appear to be living in a society that doesn’t value waiting for anything this may be the ultimate hurdle to the payment model for news.

By: Value of social media, Twitter to journalists | Save the Media

Value of social media, Twitter to journalists | Save the Media — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:11:57 +0000

[...] Nieman Journalism Lab today, noting that bottled-water producers know something newspapers do not: How to sell something people can often get for free. In much of the developed world, tap water is free and clean, yet people will shell out $6 or [...]

By: rick

rick — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:38:33 +0000

The analogy is flawed. If people could grab a bottle of water off the same shelf that held bottled water that cost something guess what would happen? right. The free water would fly off the shelves, the water with a charge would sit there. That’s the situation that more closely describes news these days. it’s as easy for me to type in one URL as another, so if I can get the news for free and it’s substantially the same as the paid version… why pay?

Too many news sources act as if this is still the middle of the 20th century when we had a couple of papers and 3 major channels of TV for news. In the 50 years of my life I’ve gone from being reliant on 2 papers and 3 networks carried by 3 local stations on a predefined schedule to a world where I have hundreds of newspapers, TV station and audio from around the world all available on demand. Yet news organization still all cover the same half dozen stories as leads – and then wonder why I’m not interested. Give me something unique. Not a difference face on the same product, give me a product that’s unique. Or, of course, you can fade away. Your choice.

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:17:41 +0000

This is an incredibly weak analogy. Someone who buys bottled water is buying convenience. How exactly are you going to make paid news more convenient than free news?

By: Alan M.

Alan M. — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:39:23 +0000

Selling news as if it’s bottled water would be a disaster: It’s an admission that the content is just another commodity — which, last time I checked, hasn’t been a good strategy for journalism. Far better, I think, to sell news like wine: lots of local vineyards growing individual varieties of grapes that have their own flavor & appeal. (No one would ever mistake a Boston red for a New York white.) Or if that’s too high brow, think micro-brewed beers.

If you still think journalism needs help from the brand managers at, say, Pepsi, then it might help to remember John Sculley and his rather, ummm… *uneven* experience as the CEO of Apple. http://tr.im/mucl

By: EP

EP — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:15:32 +0000

I meant to write “you cannot drink from the tap everywhere.” (Meaning every country, or every city). Apologies.

By: EP

EP — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:13:18 +0000

The thing is, tap water is not given away free. People pay for access to tap water. And, very importantly, you cannot drink from the tap in every water, so the only way of getting purified water is by buying bottled water (or boiling it, or adding disinfectants, but this takes time, and is not as efficient or convenient).

On top of that, in the case that you happen to live in a place where you can actually drink tap water (it’s not as common as you might think), as Ryan has pointed out, you may buy it once, and then just refill it…

The bottled water analogy also assumes that there is a clear distinction between form and content or content and container. We would have to look at that more closely if we want to use it as an analogy for news.

By: Ryan Sholin

Ryan Sholin — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:50:35 +0000

You may be overstating the ease of access to clean drinking water in the majority of the world, but I’ll punt on that angle and offer this, instead:

If you follow the Aquafina/Pepsi Dasani/Coca-Cola analogy a bit further, you find that these major producers of a generally unhealthy product (soda!) decided to repackage the healthiest part (tap water!) to capitalize on a trend (people will *buy* bottles of water!).

Take that to news and you get something like Salon : Evian :: Major Metro w/Paid Content : Aquafina.

Then again, I have a tendency to pay for a water bottle once, then refill it from free fountains. I guess that makes me some sort of water bottle pirate.

By: Rick Conrad

Rick Conrad — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:38:43 +0000

It may sound overly simplistic, but even when you buy a bottle of water or a can of Pepsi, you DO actually get something. You can hold it in your hand, you USE it. And those industries have been successful after years and years of clever marketing to make us want what they’re selling.

I don’t have the answer either, but surely it’s not as simple as turning on the tap, putting it in a container, putting a cap on it and expecting people to buy it.

Unfortunately, because of the serious cutbacks to many North American newsrooms, most media outlets would be offering a bottle that is only half full, but charging a premium for it.

By: Josh Young

Josh Young — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:23:24 +0000

The news is an experience good, highly unpredictable from one article to another, the ramifications of which I explain here:

http://networkednews.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/not-by-links-alone-google-news-experience-good/

The news is also what economists call a “public good”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

It’s not all like a song, water, gasoline, or virtually any other good.