Pay per content vs. ad generated content
I would just like to open a discussion of what everyone feels about having newspaper charge for certain content on their sites vs. newspapers that rely on advertising revenue from the website for their payments.
What is your opinion on each?
What are the drawbacks to each (or the advantages)?
Most importantly, what do readers think?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
Don't block content
As a reader of many newspapers in print and online, I think charging for content on the web is bad business and overall alienates readers.
When I buy a print subscription, I am paying for getting the newspaper delivered. Not for reading it. I can view all the pages I want whenever I want to. Why should online be any different. Most of a newspaper's money comes from ads, whether it be in print or online, so why should you limit the content to a reader?
With the NY Times opening their site and talk of the Wall Street Journal doing the same, why would I pick a different online paper, with the same or similar content, and pay for it. It's just not going to happen.
Then why does that market continue to lose money?
I am an editor for a small newspaper in Georgia and I must say that our website is not generating any money whatsoever. We give content away, and then there is no money to be had. It's a losing battle.
We have even considered stopping our website and just putting up a subscription form for the print edition. I have no idea what we are doing wrong, but it's just not working.
Effort
Hi Ken,
Perhaps I am cheating here, but I took a look at your website (the link is not shared), and I am just curious about how much effort and planning was done for your site.
It looks nice, it works functionally, but I don't really see a lot to draw a reader in. I am not sure of the size of your newspaper, but the single article up on the site I am sure is a far cry from what is actually in your paper. Right off the bat, I can say that putting calendar listings and obituaries on your site could at least draw some return users to your site and a good way to maybe get specific advertisers to those pages.
What made your newspaper work? That could be what makes your website succeed. Capitalizing on what works in print and then expanding it online is one of the best ways to regain online readership and increased ad sales.
Whereas your newspaper is published once a week, your website could update three or four times a week with information your print readers would be interested in. The possibilities are actually limitless on what you could do. And what I am sharing is a very small portion of that.
If you have specific questions, please let us know and we can try to help.
Thanks for writing in.
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
But you would pay for a print subscription?
If you are willing to pay for a print subscription, then you should be willing to pay for an online subscription. Why the double standard?
Not defending either side, but ...
I think this is a matter of opinion, but subscription costs are not meant to be profitable. They are usually just to cover the cost of delivery and to some degree to offset the printing cost a bit. If a newspaper is delivered online via a website or e-mail, there are no printing costs and/or delivery costs associated with it.
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
i agreed
should be willing to pay for an online subscription.
Regards
torres fernando
student of Munichs Online University
Are you kidding?
One, I pay more to get the paper home delivered. It's convenience. And if it is to offset delivery costs, then how come the newspaper stand right outside the newspaper office still charges me $1.50? Delivery costs for someone from the office to walk it to the stand? I don't think so.
I think newspapers need to think long and hard about their audience. The internet is the perfect answer to what newspapers have been doing to their readers for a long time now. They are always out to find more ways to squeeze another dollar out of advertisers and their readers. The internet leveled the field. Now they actually need to produce some good news and and good reporting to get their audience back.
Maybe they should look at the internet as a leveled playing field and quit whining about it.
Cannot ignore online ads any longer
With the Christian Science Monitor going online only, many newspapers are again re-evaluating their online strategies. When you listen to newspaper execs, you usually hear the same line over and over again: even though online page views are up and paper sales are down, the amount of ad revenue coming from online is still tiny compared to print. That's definitely true, but a large part of the problem is that many newspapers don't really concentrate on online sales -- especially among the best targets: local businesses. Many small businesses advertise online, but because newspapers don't court them, they go elsewhere, such as directly to Google.
The NY Times is writing about how at least some newspapers are realizing that, rather than focusing their sales efforts almost entirely on print ads, they need to start focusing on selling online ads as well. Amazingly, many of these newspapers have almost all of their sales commissions for print ads. In those cases, is it any wonder that they don't get more online ads? In fact, many ad sales folks simply "throw in" some online ads as a bonus to get companies to sign the dotted line for print ads, which is exactly the wrong incentive needed if you're trying to grow the online ad business.
What's really amazing is that newspapers are just now catching on to this. They're only about five years too late. The local businesses, which would have been interested five years ago, have figured out that there are other options for online advertising from Google to "local" sites like Yelp and CitySearch.
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
Pay per content... The aftermath
Ok. I've had to do a lot of research into the pros and cons of paid-for content on a news website and I can agree to freeing up all editorial content to grow my readership. But there still remains the question of what to do with those who have paid for their subscriptions and have, say, half of their time left? How do we compensate them? Advertising credit?
Relaunch
Unfortunately in that case, many times those who subscribe are not interested in advertising credit. However, that could be an options for some.
I think the best idea (this is just my opinion) is to relaunch your website without the paid content, but make it something big. Advertise the new site and it's launch date ... offer the subscribers the credit - or offer them a discount on the print subscription.
The Wall Street Journal and New York Times pondered these same ideas. By making a big deal about the whole thing, it showed that the paper was heading in a new direction with their website, which in turn, allowed them to make sweeping changes to subscription services without getting the backlash of the readership.
This will not be a solution for all people, but something that could work to make the transition easier for both the newspaper staff and its readership.
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
John Sokolich
Owner: Maine Web FX
jsokolich@mainewebfx.com
Post new comment