another brick in the paywall

“Who started this rumour that all information should be free and why didn’t we challenge this when it first came out?”Anne Moore, chief executive, Time Inc, March 2009

There is no such thing as a free news story”Rupert Murdoch

Wise, or flippant words from Murdoch and Anne Moore; can news really sit behind a paywall? It is like shifting the tide or causing the earth to spin the other way around on its axis. Well possibly not quite as dramatic as that, but it is unnatural. The question is whether people will be willing to pay for online content?

This is not a new idea. It has been batting around newsrooms for year ever since Doc Martens were first in – I had a cherry red pair in the mid-nineties, but I am not quite willing to admit that they are back in fashion now.

What has come back into fashion again, is charging for online content. It has become a hot topic, a key trend and possibly a solution for the drop in newspaper sales. Rupert Murdoch has committed to constructing paywalls around News Corp papers, which will leave The Daily Mirror jumping for joy.  If you can no longer go to The Sun to get your page 3 lovely – where is the next point of call?

Shane Richmond’s blog hosted on The Telegraph discusses this issue:

“As we know, readers will pay provided there isn’t a free alternative of sufficient quality available. Quality, as always, is a relative term and there will always be an alternative.”

So, can it work? Are the days of free content now over?

If some papers, like The Times begin charging for their news content, it will drive those loving unique users into the beautiful arms of an aggregator, such as killer Google or another free news website. It is estimated that The Times may lose up to anywhere between 80% and 95% of their traffic once pay walls have been introduced.

Google, Google Chrome, Google Reader, Google Wave and even the verb Google. Google has grown and benefited from the demise of the newspaper. The media is now at a critical point.

Do we wait for the advertising economy to get back on board with print, or do we start charging for our work? (Speaking of which, do you think anyone would pay for this?)

The future of print advertising looks bleak. It is now widely assumed that the money once gained from ads in newspapers and magazines has gone, and will never come back.

Let’s dig deep into the pockets of this story then –

I think we can all agree that specialist magazines and newspapers such as the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal can happily sit behind a paywall:

a) because they have a loyal and dedicated audience seeking specialist news


b) because we all know bankers have very big pockets

These models work because people who sign up to them need news that is specific to them.  They can rely on the FT to be informative and accurate. How would I feel if Media Guardian sat behind a paywall? Well, I would probably be willing to fork out for that too.

Consumers have been raised on a default position of receiving free news. If you miss the 10 o’clock news one night you can log onto the BBC and catch up instantly, quickly and cheaply. If you forget to pop to the local shop for your copy of The Guardian or The Daily Mail before getting to work, the first thing you do when you log on in the morning is to visit their site and catch up with what’s going on in the world.

Where is the incentive to buy the newspaper?

It is rather romantic to think that people want the tangible product anymore.  Rob Andrew, the UK editor for paidContent said that in a survey carried out by paidContent and Harris Interactive over 74% of people would find another free site to view their news. When a barrier is put up, we move around it.

But more worryingly than that, when asked how much people were willing to pay for news, the answer was very little. For example, for a one-off article most people would only be willing to pay 1p-2p. Something tells me that newspapers are not going to boost their revenue by an extra penny or two.

Charging for online content may not work in the way that Murdoch wants and what will happen to newspapers and the paywall model remains to be seen.

But things are moving. This morning, Google announced that they will allow publishers of paid content to reduce the amount of free access internet users have to their sites from Google News.

The London Evening Standard which recently became a freesheet paper announced that they are planning to raise distribution levels to 800,000.

For better or for worse, the times, they are a changing. The key is to try and save good journalism and not necessarily, the newspaper.

I shall leave you with Bob Dylan whose words ring as true today, as they did then.


Filed under journalism, online

5 responses to “another brick in the paywall

  1. Pleased to see that not just being content with slamming paywalls – which I agree with you 100% will be a diversion at most, and will fail as other alternatives emerge – you are confident of Bob Dylan’s lack of interest in instigating copyright claims against you.

    Actually the truth on that one is that any “breach of copyright” will be over-looked if it overall draws more attention to the copyright-holder. Self-interest rules, OK.

    So there is a parallel. Perhaps by building the paywall, Murdoch is doing us a favour because by limiting exposure we may forget about them and they’ll just go away. What’s more interesting is way that the “regional newsmedia” may actually florish behind a paywall where they are a monopoly provider. Hence the decision of the Evening Standard to go free, and the possible success of Johnstone Press’ initiative.

    Finally, back to copyright. This is an issue that will be resolved in the next five years I feel. I think that this issue above all others will be the one that defines the future of publishing. There’s an element of “house of cards” here. The publishers (in the widest sense) have been fighting this one for many years, but increasingly copyright-holders are less interested in a third-party controlling access to their IPR. There’s a plethora of experiments in new economic models of returning value to the copyright-holder. These will result in a new information economy and the death of the publisher who fails to recognse that they need to adapt.

    The times they are changing … indeed.

  2. I have said they were his lyrics and linked back to his website…is that enough? Or do I need to do more?

  3. I would pay for your blog my dear Miss Harrison, both in money and in kind. Balanced and pragmatic and wonderful for putting Bob Dylan in my head before I go to bed. Brilliant as always xx

  4. andrevanloon

    This issue is being blogged about quite a bit now.

    Payment in itself is not persuasive. What would be persuasive is being told what exactly you are paying for. Online newspapers have made it difficult to charge for things, having started off largely free. You can haggle down, not that well up.

    But still, I do agree with the basic idea that something of value should be paid for. And it is not just the FT and WSJ.

    By the way, not only bankers read the FT. Not even only finance professionals. It is a cracking good paper because it is fundamentally good at what it does: I would submit because there are more people who take money seriously than there are those who do not.

    Anyway: interesting blog.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s