The Shrine

So some of you may remember I work in the interactive department of a newspaper as a webdesigner. Today at our meeting my boss brought up the idea that corporate wants to consider a registration wall or micropayments on our websites.

Now comes the obvious thought of didn't most news companies do away with reg walls years ago for a reason?

How do you get people to pay for content if its free elsewhere? And sure some content can be localized and exclusive, but is that enough of a draw to get a fee?

The only way I can honestly see micropayments work for the newspaper industry is that EVERY PAPER and AP come to an agreement and set up this type of system on all of their sites. If one person isn't charging and its free why would I pay for it?

Here are some articles:
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136018
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/0 ... line-news/

I don't know... I think the problem is that, unlike with print newspaper, people don't get their news from 1 source anymore. It was easy to pay for your daily newspaper subscription to 1 or 2 papers... but each day most of us must read news from half a dozen different websites and they change day to day. Am I expected to pay a fee for each one?

I don't know what there is TO do, but news has become too decentralized for most fee-based business models to work. I take it ad-based models aren't working much either?

Tessian wrote:I don't know what there is TO do, but news has become too decentralized for most fee-based business models to work. I take it ad-based models aren't working much either?

Not to the degree newspapers have profited in the past. Remember 15 years ago Newspaper was king of classifieds. Most of us now just use craigslist because its free and effective. We used to use newspapers for movie times and so many other things, but now we use all kinds of other sources.

They don't have much of a leg to stand on anymore. They do not offer anything unique except for their content... which is mostly AP feeds. Which is why the AP is going to try to pursue the interest of preserving the newspaper companies.

That was my point-- all information has become so decentralized thanks to the internet. Newspapers need to adapt or die... and most will probably die. AP needs to do something to keep themselves alive since they DO provide unique content, but newspapers were just the pre-internet information aggregator.

Anarky wrote:So some of you may remember I work in the interactive department of a newspaper as a webdesigner. Today at our meeting my boss brought up the idea that corporate wants to consider a registration wall or micropayments on our websites.

Now comes the obvious thought of didn't most news companies do away with reg walls years ago for a reason?

How do you get people to pay for content if its free elsewhere? And sure some content can be localized and exclusive, but is that enough of a draw to get a fee?

The only way I can honestly see micropayments work for the newspaper industry is that EVERY PAPER and AP come to an agreement and set up this type of system on all of their sites. If one person isn't charging and its free why would I pay for it?

Here are some articles:
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=136018
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/0 ... line-news/

So many free papers out there that earn their profit through advertising only. Others are emerging through innovation of delivery (online, PDA's, email, cellphones, etc). The most successful seems to be specialist papers that cater to a very specific content/demographic (for instance, gay-slanted papers here in vancouver).

I personally think microtransactions are a bad idea, though I can see the allure to corporate types since it most closely resembles the consumer-pays-for-our-shit model. Unfortunately, the reality is you are just trying to sell the consumer pieces of what you were selling before, and all you are accomplishing if giving the consumer the feeling he is being nickeled and dimed (which is unappealing no matter how small the amount). If you aren't changing your product/service to serve some legitimate appeal above free outlets, where is the motivation for consumers?

Periodical print is dying, it's only a matter of time before it's dead. Innovation is key, whether it's delivery or content. Can't cling to a business model that is no longer relevant.

Same deal as that whole piracy thread -- maybe the AP gets to be the next MPAA/RIAA, lol.

kali o. wrote:Same deal as that whole piracy thread -- maybe the AP gets to be the next MPAA/RIAA, lol.

This seems to be what the AP is doing actually

Anarky wrote:

kali o. wrote:Same deal as that whole piracy thread -- maybe the AP gets to be the next MPAA/RIAA, lol.

This seems to be what the AP is doing actually

Except the AP has more of a case... other websites are just reprinting their content and making a profit from it. Big difference from what the MPAA/RIAA are fighting which is/was consumers fighting their business model. They're not fighting their customers, they're fighting other companies making money off their content without paying for it in the first place.

Some blogs still have some relevance. I think somebody pointed out that blogs like Politico have press passes to the White House PR meetings.

Even if all of the newspapers die, the news will never die. People will do it for free if they have to. It's too much of a cornerstone of our government.

Actually, even I'm going to blogs and other "free" information sources right now, and I never thought I would. Guess I can blame Hunter S. Thompson for convincing me that bias and reporting are completely inseparable...I wouldn't visit a site that used micropayments, almost no matter what.

I can't see micropayments as being anything other than the kiss of death for information agencies these days. I think your boss will be fired within a year if he lets this get put in place, quite honestly, even if corporate makes him/her do it (maybe especially if corporate makes him/her do it, they love a good head ready for the chopping block if they need to bury a bad decision or two).

I DO think there's still a lot of validity in *PRINT* subscriptions. People still need things to read in bed (I personally can't stand the laptop-in-bed thing), in the bathroom, at the kitchen table eating lunch, in waiting rooms, during airline flights, et cetera. Most people still love magazines in a whole bunch of situations, you just do have to remind them of it sometimes.

If someone were to ask me to come up with the next generation of revenue model for periodicals in the internet age *cough cough*, it would be using a completely free website with high-rotation advertising to defray costs as a "leader" to try to encourage dedicated subscribers, the true fans of the periodical in question, to get annual or even biannual subscriptions. Put the subscription ads in the banners on heavy rotation. Offer content in print that *doesn't* exist online (everybody seems to be doing the reverse, and it just seems retarded in terms of the business model). Possibly introduce some specialty print variants of the magazine as additional sources of revenue. Do the whole thing on a direct-subscription model (and probably use rebilling by default, much as I just hate rebilling).

I'm also thinking about how Microsoft has consistently gotten me to pay for XBL even when I'm not using it that much these days, basically because you have to pay for XBL to develop on the console...but given how many sites are already encouraging amateur journalists who are quite eager to post for free, I'm not sure it would work. Though it does give me an alternate idea - you could start selling premium blogspace, maybe, and have a program whereby the most interesting of the premium bloggers could have a chance to have their work featured in the periodical in question. (Periodicals as webhosting? Since so much of the webhosting/premium blogspace business still sucks, who knows, maybe...)

Just throwing some ideas out, trying to come up with things I haven't heard before.

Honestly, micropayments are something the older generation thinks will work, and it's not going to. I can just see someone with a stern expression and a three-piece suit suggesting it in a very measured and calm tone of voice and completely not realizing what the Internet is all about. If people are asked to pay for things they can get free elsewhere, they will go somewhere else.

Tessian wrote: Except the AP has more of a case... other websites are just reprinting their content and making a profit from it. Big difference from what the MPAA/RIAA are fighting which is/was consumers fighting their business model. They're not fighting their customers, they're fighting other companies making money off their content without paying for it in the first place.

I don't think you are correct, based on what I am reading here. In fact, I think the similarities are near identical.

Smaller websites (blogs, personal/small business websites, feeds, etc) are certainly not responsible for any significant decline in print readership. At best they are a scapegoat (just like pirates). It's the big sites online that pull in print readership (AP), google, msn, yahoo, various news sites(cnn, bbc, etc) and the like.

And when it comes to solutions to secure profitability (moreso from the providers, not the creators), the response is silliness like pay walls and microtransactions, which are little more than a last grasp at old business models.

Mind you, I don't pretend to know the inner workings of news outlets or the AP -- I base my opinions of what I read in this thread. And from what I read, how can outdated outlets restricting and controlling of public access to information not be seen as an "attack on the consumers fighting the business model"?

Identical to piracy if you ask me. Identically stupid and due for real change.

I Think Replay(Mental) pretty much understand where I'm coming from. The culture of the newspaper has no understanding of whats gone on in the last 15 years it seems. They keep trying to use old models and bad ideas that never worked.

Newspapers no longer making a large profit with Advertising and Classifieds, now they are going back to the drawing board. The average age of a person reading the paper is in their 50's and beyond. There will never be a resurgence among young people, even my Aunt and Uncle in their 50's said they might stop getting the paper since they get it all online.

My daily experience at work is dealing with incompetent sales people who do not understand how to sell online advertisements and a corporate office in another state that does not realize we should drop our shitty propriety CMS and embrace open source to cut down on cost. Everyday hurts my brain because they throw money at the stupidest things. Open source could cut cost and help us so much but our IT department is FAIL.

kali o. wrote:

Tessian wrote: Except the AP has more of a case... other websites are just reprinting their content and making a profit from it. Big difference from what the MPAA/RIAA are fighting which is/was consumers fighting their business model. They're not fighting their customers, they're fighting other companies making money off their content without paying for it in the first place.

I don't think you are correct, based on what I am reading here. In fact, I think the similarities are near identical.

Smaller websites (blogs, personal/small business websites, feeds, etc) are certainly not responsible for any significant decline in print readership. At best they are a scapegoat (just like pirates). It's the big sites online that pull in print readership (AP), google, msn, yahoo, various news sites(cnn, bbc, etc) and the like.

And when it comes to solutions to secure profitability (moreso from the providers, not the creators), the response is silliness like pay walls and microtransactions, which are little more than a last grasp at old business models.

Mind you, I don't pretend to know the inner workings of news outlets or the AP -- I base my opinions of what I read in this thread. And from what I read, how can outdated outlets restricting and controlling of public access to information not be seen as an "attack on the consumers fighting the business model"?

Identical to piracy if you ask me. Identically stupid and due for real change.

Kup you're confusing newspapers with the AP; 2 very different cases here. The AP isn't FIGHTING the use of their content online, it's going to be their #1 source of revenue if not already... what they're trying to do is actually get PAID for the content that websites like Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc post and make money from-- AP doesn't see a dime of stuff like that.

The use of AP's content hasn't shrunk with the internet and the downfall of newspapers, it's gone up... they just need to make sure they're actually getting paid for it. It's not a scapegoat, it's a clear shift. Their viewership has moved from print to online, grown, yet very few websites that post their content pay for it. This isn't to say I'm in favor of any kind of micro payments either, but AP does deserve some of that ad revenue at least from Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc.

Tessian wrote: Kup you're confusing newspapers with the AP; 2 very different cases here. The AP isn't FIGHTING the use of their content online, it's going to be their #1 source of revenue if not already... what they're trying to do is actually get PAID for the content that websites like Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc post and make money from-- AP doesn't see a dime of stuff like that.

The use of AP's content hasn't shrunk with the internet and the downfall of newspapers, it's gone up... they just need to make sure they're actually getting paid for it. It's not a scapegoat, it's a clear shift. Their viewership has moved from print to online, grown, yet very few websites that post their content pay for it. This isn't to say I'm in favor of any kind of micro payments either, but AP does deserve some of that ad revenue at least from Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc.

I'm not Kup, but if the big sites aren't paying, that's news to me. I got the impression that they DID pay, and APs issue was with indexing services (which highlight the occasional stolen content on smaller websites/feeds/etc). Ie: Google. Which is exactly the same excuse/accusation tossed at Bittorrent sites.

I wasn't confusing the AP (creators) with the outlets (newspapers), it's just the topic is on two fronts (the original topic and the link discussion).

Why make it more difficult to read your paper when its so easy to get the news elsewhere? Setting up a registration or having microtransactions would almost be the equivalent of starting to shut you website down in this internet environment

Zeus wrote:Why make it more difficult to read your paper when its so easy to get the news elsewhere? Setting up a registration or having microtransactions would almost be the equivalent of starting to shut you website down in this internet environment

Exactly, but this is why the newspaper is dying, they just didn't know how to migrate to this media.

They wish they owned Google News and Craigslist essentially.

kali o. wrote:I'm not Kup, but if the big sites aren't paying, that's news to me. I got the impression that they DID pay, and APs issue was with indexing services (which highlight the occasional stolen content on smaller websites/feeds/etc). Ie: Google. Which is exactly the same excuse/accusation tossed at Bittorrent sites.

If that's truly their stance, then fuck them. Google News has provided more visibility to the lesser known news sites, and given new life to old newspaper's online sites.

Anarky, you might want to start following the current Least I Could Do storyline.

Starts here, is currently still in progress:

http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090420

Replay wrote:Anarky, you might want to start following the current Least I Could Do storyline.

Starts here, is currently still in progress:

http://leasticoulddo.com/comic/20090420

Oh man, I'm so behind on this comic, been years since I read it