Media Watchers Beginning To Ask Why People Would Pay For Online Journalism

from the about-time dept

Ever since the latest round of newspaper paywall/micropayment suggestions have come up, we've been asking why none of the newspapers/reporters pushing these plans can explain what added value will make people buy. And that's because almost none of them are actually thinking about this. They just keep thinking that if they add a mechanism to get people to pay, that people will magically pay, rather than go elsewhere. The problem, of course, is that readers have made it clear: if their local paper charges for online access, they'll just go elsewhere.

The newspapers, like the recording industry, seem to be under the delusion that they're somehow owed money from consumers, rather than needing to actually give them a reason to buy. Mathew Ingram points us to a Columbia Journalism Review article by Jan Schaffer that finally makes this point by saying it's time to look at the demand side of these newspaper business models, while noting that the problem isn't a lack of paywalls, but a lack of interest in what is called "journalism" these days:

In looking to reconstruct journalism, I'd start not by asking how do we get money for what we've always done. I'd ask instead: How do we provide something worth paying for? As a long-time news consumer, I have recoiled at much of what we are rendering as "journalism."

What if it's not just the business model of journalism that is broken? What if the way we are doing our journalism is broken, too? How are some of the new media makers trying to fix that?

None of this is particularly new, but it's great to see CJR finally realize that's the issue, rather than how to best structure the paywall.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will People Pay For Investigative Journalism To Get The Results A Week Early

from the some,-but-not-many... dept

Tracy writes in to alert us to an attempt by a Milwaukee newspaper to get people to pay, specifically for investigative reporting, by publishing it in the paper a week before it goes online for free and by offering it online only to paying subscribers:

Investigative reporting is the most expensive form of journalism produced by the Journal Sentinel newsroom. Because of the expense and resources it requires, we are giving our print and e-edition subscribers exclusive access to the Preacher's Mob series. We will be doing this on a regular basis with certain enterprise stories and investigations. Online readers will be able to see the full story later this week. For now, all readers can read this summary version below or click on several interactive and multimedia features, including a mini-documentary that contains jailhouse interviews, audio files of secret recordings of Michael Lock by a law enforcement informant, and an interactive map of key dates and places in the world of Michael Lock. With an e-edition subscription, you can read the full series as it unfolds over five days in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel starting May 17.

On the whole, I don't think this is as bad an idea as some others, but it's difficult to see how it'd be successful. If the details of a story are really that interesting, then any other news organization in the area has incentive to at least report on the high points for free online and get all the online traffic that the Journal Sentinel should have received. Also, the number of people who really think it's worth paying for a few investigative reports to get it a week before others get to see it seems like a very small audience. I'd imagine the lost online ad revenue from not drawing traffic to the website is a much bigger number than the incremental new subscribers who want to read the story at the Journal Sentinel.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Desperation Sets In: Bill Gates Finally Launching His Plan To Bribe Users

from the search-fraud,-here-we-come dept

Way back in 2005, Bill Gates announced that one way that Microsoft could beat Google would be to pay users to use Microsoft's search engine. At the time, we noted all the problems with this approach. First off, it's been tried and failed many times in the past (even Google once had a program to pay users, though almost no one remembers it). Many such systems are also prone to gaming. Also, while we were just noting yesterday that money doesn't "ruin everything," it can change the way people view a service -- and not always in a positive manner.

Either way, Microsoft is finally moving forward with this plan, as Bill Gates is announcing a new program to give cash back to users who end up buying things following a Live.com search. It's not a pure "pay-for-search" offering, instead focusing on offering cash back after the fact for buyers. That's certainly better than a pure bribe 'em strategy, but it still seems like something of a desperation play. Basically, it's admitting that Microsoft hasn't been able to compete with Google in terms of overall user experience and now has to resort to paying users instead. In situations like this, implementation is everything, and while people will definitely use this to get certain discounts, it's not clear that it will really make a huge dent in Microsoft's efforts to lure users away from Google's overall search. In general, though, business models that pay people for doing something useful tend to make sense (it's paying them for their effort). Business models that simply pay people to attract their attention don't tend to work nearly as well (and are much less sustainable). In this case, it seems like Microsoft is doing the latter, rather than former, which may make it difficult to succeed.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..