And Another Thing…

Those who regularly include links in their Twitter feeds, or who regularly follow such links, will face the same problem.

No they won’t. They’ll just stop linking to the newspapers. It’s the naive newspapers that will have the problems, and suffer the consequences.

Never mind, eh.

In the bad old days, newspapers did charge for online access, they’d have a taster of the article and you’d have to be a subscriber to get the whole thing. A very few specialist news sites still do this (Goat Felchers Weekly, for instance!) However, why would you pay for it when you can get it free somewhere else?

Unless everyone starts charging for access, the Times and the Sun are in for a hiding to nothing. And someone else will always come along with a free alternative. I really can’t see it working out well for News Int.

Possibly. But all the news groups are desperately looking for new revenue streams and ways of stopping (or slowing down) the slide in sales. It would be a brave national newspaper who held out for free content if the consequences were lots of new readers but no extra consequential profit.

I guess the blogs will simply adapt and evolve. Or everything will revolve around BBC links!

As a new blogger I’m not worried. I’m not a fan of the likes of Guido and those who simply add a little commentary to a link they’ve found. I prefer a bit more analysis and thought rather than a silly little “Hope there will be enough canapes to go round…” comments.

I rarely buy a newspaper nowadays, unless there’s a freebie in it. With internet access, I can get news before it hits the TV/radio news. Mostly via Twitter.

The best example of a free internet based newspaper is, of course, The Huffington Post. The Daily Beast, another internet based publication, has a round up of the news with links.
Many people still rely on the printed papers, so perhaps a small one off subscription for internet use would be the answer.

You raise a good point. I have thought about this also. I haven’t purchased a newspaper or weekly political journal in years and must have saved a fortune. I am not in favour of newspapers charging for on-line content as I think they should be more innovative in how they generate revenue but I am resigned that it will happen.

One point you have missed. What about blogs that are published by newspapers, e.g. Ben Brogan, Paul Waugh and Comment Central? If these are charged for then the blogosphere would suffer as much debate happens between the blogs.

I would welcome your views on this.

The trouble is, what are you getting for whatever price you pay? News is news – the better your quality of journalism, the more value the story has. Quite frankly, I don’t think any News International newspaper has the kind of quality, let alone speciality, that allows the Economist and the Financial Times to charge. Especially when faced with free competitors such as the BBC.

I mean, say they do start charging. If the news is available elsewhere for free, whether it be the BBC or the Telegraph, why would they pay for the Times Online except for exclusives? They might get a loyal following, but I can’t see that many paying. Trouble is, the lack of revenue gained for it would lead to more investigative reporting, and investigative reporting is easier on celebrities than when dealing with other issues (expenses, for example). So I’m afraid I think we will end up with more celebrity non-stories, and not just in the Sun.

Hmmmmm this idea has been kicked around for a while, but seems to be fundamentally flawed.

Unless the papers can get exclusivity agreements signed for what they are going to report on then they are just playing in to the hands of local news sites aren’t they?

Using Stoke-on-Trent as an example, are you going to pay for this story from the local paper: http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Breaking-News-Ross-Irving-new-leader-Stoke-Trent-City-Council/article-1054510-detail/article.html

or read this one for free on the local news blog:
http://pitsnpots.co.uk/2009/06/breaking-news-ross-irving-elected-as-new-council-leader/

Yes I may be a little biased as the second site is one I run in the city, but if the local ‘traditional’ media are so disinterested in something like the this then more power to the local bloggers who write because they care about their local area and not because they want to sell copy or advertising.

There will be a place for premium paid content, like goal highlights or the latest cricket I’m sure, but not for everyday news and anyone how thinks they can charge for on-line news content may be in for a bit of a shock.

The Guardian is already looking at jumping aboard the New Int bandwagon, so I suspect we may see some broad attempts at charging not too long from now.

I’d guess that we may end up with some kind of middle course, with that day’s coverage restricted, so as to allow traditional media to get back its competitive edge at least in the short term, while older content remains free online.

In the longer term though, it may be that not only will blogs find their way to free initial reporting of events (becoming the reporters themselves), but – much more significantly – the local and regional papers (e.g. Daily Post round my way) currently going through a hard time and unable even to think about charging for their online content may start to report more national level stuff from their own sources (incl via payment to the national sources and gentle plagiarism).

By the backdoor, this might even be a positive development for regional papers, given the (I assume) higher % of revenue from advertising on which regional papers depend (cf the MCr Evening News going to freebie) and therefore with less focus on need to get people to buy the hard copy.

All new territory though, and it’ll be interesting.

Well, when the New York Times started charging for access to certain online content a couple of years back, bloggers got round the problem by reposting the material wholesale on their sites. And as a result of that, I think, the NYT gave up on paid subscriptions. Interesting topic, though: I’ll put it in the webgrab on my own blog for the day.

Dear Tom. Many major cities have newspapers that are free at the point of access. They are very popular and are profitable. Nearly all the news printed by the MSM comes from 2 sources – Reuters and the PA, and PR. Even the BEEB uses them extensively, which is why you can see a talking head chosen for comeliness rather than journalistic ability, regurgitating a script as our economics correspondent, our political correspondent and our health correspondent – sometimes all on the same day and every now and then in the same bulletin.

The dead tree press has to accept the fact that general news is available from a multitude of global sources. As their business environment has drastically changed so must their business plan change to accomodate these changed.

‘I’ve never paid for it in my life…’

‘It would be a brave national newspaper’ that tried to charge for content in the current financial climate. The Independent tried a few years back. Didn’t encourage me to keep buying the hard copy.

And the idea of anyone paying to read your blog, or anyone’s, Tom… that’s a real rib tickler.

Some newspapers charge for access to certain parts of their website already.

Online newpapers also (as in the printed press) get revenue from advertising. It’s got to be far cheaper to produce an online paper than it is to print and distribute hundreds of thousands of hard copies. As online costs less to produce it should be offered at a lower price. Some tabloid newspapers are virtually free now anyway so would “The Sun” for instance, be offered at maybe £5 per year?

[...] Harris, MP is musing about how newspapers charging for online content will effect bloggers: a staple of political [...]

The whole point of blogs is that they are ‘free’ in all aspects of the word.

I certainly wouldn’t ‘pay’ for entry to one – and those who do charge will soon find themselves reduced to ‘talking to themselves’. . . as I was just saying to my imaginary friend.

>No they won’t. They’ll just stop linking to the newspapers. It’s the naive newspapers that will have the problems, and suffer the consequences.

Agree. The Groan (Emily Bell on LibCon) is already stating that they won’t paywall news content. If they paywall general columnists, then it is their loss not ours and will simply help create a truly independent commentary sector. I can’t wait.

The real loss would be the archive of historical reporting – for example the reports over several years of harrassment of photogs under Terrorism Laws.

Maintaining that archive is probably where I would like to see the BBC “regional video” money go.

>Soho Politico:
>Well, when the New York Times started charging for access to certain online content a couple of years back, bloggers got round the problem by reposting the material wholesale on their sites.

The NYT used to have a particular linking protocol which avoided the paywall splash screen.

>What happens after all these newspapers start restricting access to paying customers? Will bloggers have to assume their readers are subscribers to the external sites we link to?

I expect that – given that people link in far more than newspapers link out – the exchange would be a net loss of traffic.

Bloggers will avoid linking to subscription sites where possible, and will put a flag on links that require a subscription. Nothing new there.

Rgds

Matt

If they start to charge I will go back to buying a daily paper now and again.

I think they would loose so many hits that advertisers would think again. Not all will charge and they will win out as that is where the advertising would go.

I disagree:
http://www.twodoctors.org/2009/08/newspapers-going-through-the-f.html

We’re in the Bargaining phase, the third stage in the grief process, that’s all.

“No doubt blogs will adapt, but maybe we should start thinking about the mechanics sooner rather than later.”

The Associated Press has successfully set the bar for copyright infringement in the European Court of justice at eleven words.

“…the possibility may not be ruled out that certain isolated sentences, or even parts of sentences in the text in question, may be suitable for conveying to the reader the originality of a publication such as a newspaper or article, by communicating to that reader an element which is, in itself, the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of that article.”

http://tinyurl.com/kttkjx

Let’s not assume Murdoch will be successful. He actually has a hit and miss record of commercial successes.

In case he has not noticed virtually all UK newspapers publish the same news each day. Commentary is where there is a difference, and the single best way to loose an online voice is to put it behind a paywall (as did the New York Times with its considerably more distinguished commentators).

Still, anything that limits the reach of that awful man seems good to me.

In order to charge and survive newspapers will have to offer more. Limit the free content and charge for more in depth coverage, for archive material for niche material. Maybe.

Who knows what?

The other issue is making advertising work. If it did then content could still be free. Google seems to make zillions out of advertising.

Strikes me that the general layout of newspaper sites mitigates against reading the content and I for one find the pop up ads annoying and counter productive.

May be charge without ads but free with ads.

The newspaper industry have not even started to think about the second let alone the umpteenth way to skin the cat yet.

I really can’t see this happening. I think News International also know that it wouldn’t make good business sense either – have posted about this on my blog http://wp.me/pycui-4A – Sorry Tom I know I hyped my blog here last week as well – I’ll try not to make a habit of it !

Murdoch misses the point that the game has changed.

We no longer wait for the Times to learn news of the Boer War nor do we hang on every word of any newspaper or broadcaster to make sense of the world.

The internet makes news available in all time zones and all languages around the clock. As for comment, one is far more likely to get the inside track of the latest UK political story from a scurrilous blog than from the BBC or an establishment media source.

Just as newspapers once revolutionised the status quo so now has the internet.

Why would one pay to read the tedious pot boiler columns of David Aaronovitch et al with their Murdoch imprimatur, when for each topic addressed there are countless independent commentators who will gladly share their experiences for nothing?

Even if many new sources of information are unreliable, the public now knows that the traditional ones are hardly less fallible or partisan and that personal judgement is required in all cases.

[...] of Kent wants to ban banning.3. Roger Helmer says it is not unpatriotic to criticise the NHS.4. Tom Harris asks if blogs will benefit from newspapers charging for website content.5. Heresy Corner on how we [...]

There’s a point Murdoch and the others haven’t considered:

“Dear Sir, I write to you with regards to the considerable sums of money we place with you on behalf of clients who advertise on your website. As you are to charge for content, we will be advising our clients to seek a 50% reduction in advertising rates. Should this adjustment not be forthcoming we will advise our clients to use other online resources to adverise with.”

Does anyone think that if the majority of papers go down this route that sooner or later someone will raise the issue of the BBC using it’s publically-funded position in an unfair way? It might be in 4 or 5 years time that the BBC website is the only free “official” source of news and journalistic content in the UK, and really that can’t be right can it? I can’t see it working out well for the newspapers at all either. The gap will simply be filled by independently produced, free news websites like Indymedia with their own agendas to push. None of this will be good for the consumer or for public engagement and interest in politics and current affairs, at least initially, until these independant news sites replace the the existing newspaper companies.

Strange one for Murdoch to handle. Private Eye indicates his papers are struggling, but surely, on the other hand is the success of his other business interests, like Sky News part of this problem. I think globalisation in the communications industry will see TV and blogs further squeeze papers. I wonder if one day in the future certain newspapers will stop being printed and sold at newsagents and only appear online and customers will have to pay a fee to view them? I wonder when paperboys and girls will become a thing of the past?

Most commenters assume we will need to subscribe for papers – but why? Shouldn’t papers charge a pay per view for a small fee? It is dead easy to download a track from itunes for 79p. If a newspaper were to do something similar, they could log in your card and deduct only a small sum (10p?) per article with perhaps a top sum so that if you effectively pay the cover price you will get access to the whole paper that day (or equivalent number of articles). If enough of them do that, there may be a market.

But I am not a newspaper person so there are probably all sorts of issues with that.