Can Newspapers Be Saved?
Meera Pal
The newspaper industry is buzzing about Walter Isaacson's recent article in Time magazine, "How to Save Your Newspaper."
Isaacson notes that while "the crisis in journalism has reached meltdown proportions ... Newspaper have more readers then ever."
The problem stems lies in the fact that fewer readers are actually paying to receive their news (via a subscription or newsstand fee).
According to a Pew Research Center study, more people are getting their news online for free.
Isaacson seems to argue that it is the newspapers' fault for not charging for its content.
He goes on to say that publications need to rely on its readers for revenue, in order to feel bonded and beholden to them, rather than its advertisers.
Right now, the Wall Street Journal is among a handful of papers that require a paid monthly subscription to access its online content.
His solution? A micropayment system, in which online readers pay (à la iTunes) to access stories of interest.
While, I'm not convinced this is the answer to all that ails the newspaper industry, it is an interesting concept.
Will people be willing to pay 69 or 99 cents per story? Who knows.
But, I can appreciate Isaacson's attempt at forming a solution.
We have some of the greatest minds in our industry, and I haven't seen anyone else step up yet.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Comments
it's always been free
Also... people have basically always gotten their news for free. Subscriptions for the print editions have always been a nominal fee which barely begins to cover expenses - it's the advertising that has always supported the paper. They expect you to buy one paper and share it with your family members, leave it at the busstop, clip out a page and mail it to your mother, trade sections with your co-workers in the break room, etc.
Charging a subscription was just a way to charge more for advertising - paid circulation warrants higher ad rates than free circulation.
That trick never works...
Publishers have already tried getting their readers to pay for content. To use a somewhat obscure example, web comics (and the NYT) found out that subscription services only create a wall to keep new readers out. Subscriptions are fine if you think you can get a large enough group to support you without any further growth.
I don't think a pay-per-story system is clever enough to fool people into believing it's not a subscription.
Also, Jon Stewart made the point when he interviewed Isaacson that if you take away something that was once free, there's going to be a strong reaction. I see net neutrality groups getting involved, and it could get ugly.
Pay for content
I really don't think paying for online news content is going to work. Or if it did, every single source of news online would have to start charging at the same time, otherwise readers will just shift to a new medium. I'm not entirely convinced of brand loyalty when it comes to news, the die-hards excluded.
Post new comment