Last week’s revelation that newspaper publishers, led and inspired by Rupert Murdoch, are planning to ask readers to pay for online content has been greeted in many quarters (including here at Crikey) as some kind of gigantic gamble. But where, precisely, is the gamble?
Publishers may be slow, but they aren’t stupid. They are hardly likely to create a situation that makes life even worse for newspapers than it is now (which is already pretty bad). Their aim will be to have their cake and eat it — and here’s how:
- Keep enough free website content to maintain high online audience numbers. Much of the current traffic to news wesbites comes via Google links from people looking for information about a single (often highly topical) subject, or from readers who go to the website to find out about breaking news, sport or celebrity gossip. By not charging for this kind of “news” (and gossip), the audience numbers will stay high enough to carry nearly all the current advertising. Result: little or no loss of revenue.
- Charge for “value added” content like investigative reporting, feature stories, analysis, backgrounders, commentary, reviews, etc. This is has been the focus of the debate, but in reality this is actually the icing on the cake, not the cake. Any revenue gained here will be incremental. In most cases there probably won’t be much of it, although some newspapers may find some success by adding discount offers, gimmicks and other non-content incentives. Result: more revenue, but probably not much.
- Bundle online content with newspaper subscriptions. By offering all website content free to newspaper subscribers — which is how publishers will avoid cutting their throats in one clean blow — the semblance of a wall will be erected around newspapers who currently give away the same content online that appears in print. Result: newspaper circulations may not decline as fast (maybe).
None of these strategies will solve the burning dilemma of how to fund highly-resourced quality journalism. The hundreds of journalists employed on each of the world’s quality newspapers will continue to be funded by dwindling print (mainly classified) advertising revenues until that well dries up, and no amount of charging for online content is likely to add more than a trickle of water to the well.
But this is no Murdoch-induced gamble, it is merely a hiatus on the way to a resolution.
“Bundle online content with newspaper subscriptions.” – that seems to be the obvious thing to do, otherwise you would have subscribers to the newspaper paying twice for the same content. For example I subscribe to New Scientist magazine, apart from having it delivered by post weekly, I have access to it via the Internet.
Point (1) is not exactly the thing that matters since online revenue is so low anyway. Point (2) is what the New York Times tried: they charged a modest US $50 for access to their most read bits, the celebrity OpEd columnists. After a year or so they abandoned it. Point (3) has a real chance to work for Murdoch in the Australian context, because News has the only national newspaper for which hard-copy delivery can still make sense for people. (This is something the NYT did not try but surely must be contemplating.) The very high-priced models of WSJ or AFR is, however, not going to work.
All those sneering at Murdoch might be better advised to remember Wapping. I reckon he has a chance to get this to work in Oz. Fairfax could do worse than look at the strategy.
What if we all pay extra for “uncompromised truth free from ommission” then maybe the mainstream media won’t be so beholden to special interests with the possible exception of the massive debt they have to service every month! I believe that the main reason that MM is floundering is that just enough people are now awake to the game and that is removing any profit margin. If a few more awaken, MM will go broke leaving the independents and private information suppliers to carve out a hollow in the collective consciousness.
What about …
4. Choose between projecting a “newspaper-of-record” kind of credibility, and openly trying to be a political player (eg trying to choose a replacement Liberal party leader).
5. Choose between trying to get the first word on breaking news (against a real-time online community of millions, good luck) and having the last word on trusted facts and analysis. Or segregate the johnny-on-the spot stuff from the newspaper-of-record stuff, rather than mixing it all together.
5. (further to Eric’s point 3) Provide subscribers with a token that can get them one free hardcopy per day of the newspaper, at any newsagent. Since some people still like to read on the train, in the park, at cafes, etc.
6. Reformat the broadsheet hardcopies as tabloids, for the same reasons as point 5 above
7. Take on Fairfax’s Domain by making takeaway liftouts that are actually useful. Have you ever seen anyone carrying a Domain hardcopy to go house-hunting? Never, because it’s useless. Same with entertainment guides that can be kept in the car, and so on.
Yes, this seems a very plausible strategy for them.
The problem is nearly all the categories of stories you mention are available free online, either from public news outlets (e.g. ABC) or high-quality blogs. In fact as far as opinion goes, it is possible to get a far greater range of opinion pieces, at very high quality, from the web, than is available from any newspaper now (especially not ‘the Australian’, let alone Rupert’s down-market publications!).
The essential category that is not going to be provided by online sites is investigative journalism, because it is too expensive. But precisely for that reason, newspapers have pretty much given up doing it anyway!