March 16, 2009 at 08:41If in 2009 you are still going to take money for accessing the news, you’ll end
- Transfer
Today, I once again meet with a group of editors with whom we study business models for online news publications. To their credit, it should be noted that they do not raise the topic of micropayments, and the issue of paid access is considered from a more theoretical perspective. However, sometimes it seems that some have just woken up. As if they had not seen what happened over the past ten years. For these unfortunate I cite a few quotes to warn against the next wave of children's issues on the topic "Is it possible to charge for access to the news?"
Of Recovering Journalist :
“Let's count. Imagine that a daily newspaper in a large city charges $ 20 per year per person for access to its website, while 500,000 people are willing to read it online (keep in mind that the content is unique there, this is nowhere else, so none of them are refuses to pay). What will be the income? $ 10 million a year! ”
From “ If Facebook is free, they won’t pay the journalists of the local newspaper ” :
“ these guys are firmly convinced that everything has an alternative that, if there hadn’t been Facebook, there would have been another site worthy of replacing him, moreover, for free.
Now answer me: If these guys do not want to pay for Facebook, for what they do every day, for what they love, where they spent a lot of time, spent a lot of energy on creating a network of friends and applications, and all this is free ... Will they these guys pay at least polkopeyki for access to news "?
From Jeff Jarvis ( Jeff Jarvis ):
“Micropayments have not justified themselves anywhere, except in cases where the business model is built on a strictly controlled distribution channel (for example, mobile phones and iTunes). The New York Times and other newspapers refused a paid subscription due to the fact that the cost of organizing such a channel was too high for them. The newspaper cartel is an oxymoron, because publishers have never been able to organize as a whole (the last attempt in the US to do this - undertaken by the New Century Network - failed miserably). Charity is fine, but even the Scott Trust, which generously supports this newspaper, did not grow out of pure altruism, but out of the need to get rid of taxes that would only aggravate the position of the newspaper and force it to be sold. State support for newspapers has already been discussed here, but personally I think that the press with such support will cease to be objective. Kindle is great, but its audience is too small. ”
From Printed Matters :
“Anyone from the content-related business knows that his product is not a newspaper, not a broadcast, not a magazine, not news, not content itself, not even information. Not! These are the readers. Your product is your readers, your audience. You sell it to advertisers. More readers = more advertising = more money. In the old days, newspapers were forced to introduce a paid subscription to cover the cost of delivering the newspaper to the reader. But wait a moment! Now, after all, there is no delivery! So why bother introducing a fee and limiting your audience?
Paid access to content does not work. And there is nothing to argue about this. You can only sit and watch evidence of this . ”
Of Recovering Journalist :
“Let's count. Imagine that a daily newspaper in a large city charges $ 20 per year per person for access to its website, while 500,000 people are willing to read it online (keep in mind that the content is unique there, this is nowhere else, so none of them are refuses to pay). What will be the income? $ 10 million a year! ”
From “ If Facebook is free, they won’t pay the journalists of the local newspaper ” :
“ these guys are firmly convinced that everything has an alternative that, if there hadn’t been Facebook, there would have been another site worthy of replacing him, moreover, for free.
Now answer me: If these guys do not want to pay for Facebook, for what they do every day, for what they love, where they spent a lot of time, spent a lot of energy on creating a network of friends and applications, and all this is free ... Will they these guys pay at least polkopeyki for access to news "?
From Jeff Jarvis ( Jeff Jarvis ):
“Micropayments have not justified themselves anywhere, except in cases where the business model is built on a strictly controlled distribution channel (for example, mobile phones and iTunes). The New York Times and other newspapers refused a paid subscription due to the fact that the cost of organizing such a channel was too high for them. The newspaper cartel is an oxymoron, because publishers have never been able to organize as a whole (the last attempt in the US to do this - undertaken by the New Century Network - failed miserably). Charity is fine, but even the Scott Trust, which generously supports this newspaper, did not grow out of pure altruism, but out of the need to get rid of taxes that would only aggravate the position of the newspaper and force it to be sold. State support for newspapers has already been discussed here, but personally I think that the press with such support will cease to be objective. Kindle is great, but its audience is too small. ”
From Printed Matters :
“Anyone from the content-related business knows that his product is not a newspaper, not a broadcast, not a magazine, not news, not content itself, not even information. Not! These are the readers. Your product is your readers, your audience. You sell it to advertisers. More readers = more advertising = more money. In the old days, newspapers were forced to introduce a paid subscription to cover the cost of delivering the newspaper to the reader. But wait a moment! Now, after all, there is no delivery! So why bother introducing a fee and limiting your audience?
Paid access to content does not work. And there is nothing to argue about this. You can only sit and watch evidence of this . ”