New York magazine is speculating that NYTimes.com is headed toward a metered pay wall system. The system, according to New York Magazine, would allow users to read a certain number of articles for free before they are forced to pay.
UPDATE: The New York Times has made it official that they will charge for Online Access.
In essence, news, which readers spent decades paying for and then a decade not paying for, would suddenly have a price tag again.
It would seem to be a difficult challenge to convince readers to pay for something that was free only recently and is free elsewhere — except that this is hardly a new idea. Bottled water companies have been incredibly successful doing just that.
Tap water had been practically free for decades when bottlers started pouring it into plastic containers and selling it for prices much higher than milk or gasoline.
So how could this model help media companies?
- Focus on readers’ fears: Bottled water is trumpeted as cleaner and safer than tap. News companies like the Times need to convince users that all information is not equal. The Times is better sourced and more trustworthy than its rivals.
- Pump up the benefits: Bottled water was prompted as a healthy alternative to soft drinks and coffee. Media companies can focus on the value of informed citizenry and the economic advantages of keeping up with the news.
- Preach portabilty: You can grab water on the go and take it anywhere. Media companies need their information to be available on any device, anytime and anywhere. Charge for information on new devices and platforms. eBook readers, smartphones and tablets can all be new revenue streams because readers don’t have an expectation of free content — yet.
- Emphasize the brand: Water from Fiji probably doesn’t actually taste that much better than tap water. Media companies like the Times and the Wall Street Journal are luxury brands but don’t really portray themselves as such. These companies need focus on showing their products as status symbols.
It will take more than just marketing, but it could be possible to get people to pay for news and forget that they ever minded paying.
Tags: Journalism, Newspaper, The New York Times
Confessions of a Hero-Worshiper
Miracle at Midway
Repeat after me: Readers never paid for the news. They paid for the delivery mechanism, the package. If you took away all print advertising and just tried to run a paper on current subscription and rack sales, you’d be out of business in a week.
And on the internet, readers still pay for the delivery mechanism, it’s just that the delivery comes through an ISP.
Broadcast television news was always free to the viewer, who paid for an antenna and a receiver. Cable news has subscribers, but again, the viewer pays the distribution network, not the news provider.
Bryan you make a good point — delivery is crucial part of the equation. However rarely was the newspaper free to pick up at the printing plant, its just that what you paid barely paid for any part of the process reporting, editing, printing or delivery. But I’m not sure that years of higher subscription rates would have convinced online users to pay for news either.
My generation still has the local paper delivered. It is a hard habit to break.