If Anything Newspaper Need To Give Away MORE For Free

By Bob Norman Mon., Mar. 16 2009 at 4:45 PM

Pin It

It's all the rage these days: Newspapers just need to charge people for their online content -- that would solve our problems!

Everybody loves talking that smack, the latest being the Miami Herald's James Burnett. But it's all quite silly. In fact the opposite is true -- newspapers have to give more of their content away to help build readership levels that will woo more advertisers.

Why do people assume the public, in the midst of a deep recession, would jump at reading the Sun-Sentinel or Miami Herald for a fee? I think the vast majority would just keep fishing for free information and watch more local news on TV or listen to more radio. They probably figure that if it's really important, they'll hear about it.

I'm pretty certain charging everyone for a look would backfire drastically on newspapers. Why? Because fewer eyes means less advertising dollars. In fact, newspapers like the Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald would do themselves a favor if they stop charging people for all they content they're holding back now.

That's right, all but a tiny percentage of the newspaper's work is available only for a price (if you're not blessed with Nexis). Stories go dead on the website after a week or so -- that's an ocean of content untapped by the newspaper websites. Of all the comments (some valuable, others lamentable) on the recent Miami Herald layoffs post, this was the smartest line of all, I think: "They still haven't figured out that the website can grow in value as they add more content," wrote Mister Twister. "Stuff still goes 404 in a matter of days. Crazy!"

Absolutely insane. Now they want to hide all their content behind a credit card screen? Crazier!

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

It remains to be seen whether newspapers are the dying dinosaurs that everyone riding on them says they are. What doesn't remain to be seen is that the men -- and they most definitely are men -- who run them are dinosaurs who have already died. They just haven't been hauled away yet. At the Herald, we've had the perfect opportunity to throw those dinosaurs into the bay and move on. Unfortunately, it's the dinosaurs who are tossing the live animals into the bay. How many people under 30 -- hell, under 40 -- are running newspapers? How can you expect to get fresh ideas and hot blood from a bunch of stodgy old baby boomers who are aging as rapidly as the core of readers that newspapers once depended on? The pathetic attempts to be hip and cool and up to date -- whether with gigantic pictures, splashy web sites or news pages full of Hollywood gossip -- is like the parent of a teenager trying to talk in the kid's lingo. It's an embarrassment. To dismiss a pay-per-view approach as desperate, insane or wholly unworkable -- when the myriad of possibilities is practically inexhaustible -- is short-sighted. To say the least. "Oh, they tried that and it didn't work." "Every newspaper would have to do it at the same time for it to succeed." "Why would you charge for something that people can get for free elsewhere?" If that's what you think, apply for a management job and join the Dinosaur Club. That's the kind of thinking -- half-baked notions and preconceived conclusions without further consideration -- that management thrives on. Here's a theory that you'll never read in Editor & Publisher or on the op-ed page of any daily newspaper in America. And it's just one reason why variation of pay-per-view could work. What is the biggest, most successful enterprise on the Internet? You dinosaurs out there are probably thinking eBay or amazon.com or Google or maybe even YouTube. But every male reader, excepting perhaps a handful in newspaper management, knows that it's porn. Porn rules. It is the bread and butter of the Internet. But how can that be? How in the world can pornographers make money when the very same pictures of couples copulating and doing everything under the sun -- and behind the sun -- can be viewed and downloaded for free? How can they charge for subscriptions for the same content and make wheelbarrows full of cash? How indeed? Forget the subject matter and look at the cold, hard facts -- something the politically correct and perpetually flaccid newspaper executives could never do. Pornographers are computer literate and technically savvy. They know how to market and distribute their product. That product -- to the chagrin of many -- is everywhere. But most importantly, they know their audience and they know what they want. And they give it to them. For a fee. And they make it better and more enticing and more irresistible than what's available for free. And their readers pay for it. In big bucks. Month after month after month after month. I think there are two ways to go here. If you find porn disgusting and unredeemable and dehumanizing and you want to kill it once and for all, let newspaper executives take it over. On the other hand, if you want to keep newspapers alive and vibrant and relevant, put some young people in charge of them and let them learn and practice and execute the lessons of porn. And if after reading all this, you're thinking, "We can't put dirty pictures in the newspaper," then go fuck yourself and jump in the bay.
Content is the strongest asset a Newspapers has and giving it all away for free is dumb. When something is free you have no need to decide if it has value and I think newspapers have been loosing value in the public eye for a while now. Not just b/c they have been giving away information for free but b/c they are not doing a good job in general. Their websites suck and most of the content is generic. If the newspapers start giving us what we need and want we will pay. There are no shortcuts here.
It's not a bad idea but it's too late to start charging for something that's free all over the place. Had newspapers used the power of their brand and their local monopolies to leverage their content YEARS ago, sure. Not now. Too late. Then again, they still haven't figured out how to present their own content online TODAY.
Pulp -- This is kinda lengthy, but an interesting read, comparing the revolution around the invention of the printing press with the current state of the industry in the wake of the Web. The bottom line of it is that news on paper is going the way of illuminated manuscripts, and people need to stop asking "how do we save newspapers?" and start asking "how do we save journalism?" http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
If anything good comes out of these hard times for print, it'll be that we'll never again take the definition of "news" for granted. These debates are fascinating. In a best case scenario they'll lead to a renaissance for journalism. BTW, any comment on SPI ditching print to go completely on line? I looked at their site for the first time yesterday and I was appalled at how ugly it was. And also dismayed that so many good, mature journalists were laid off from the paper so they can hire politicos to write blogs and columns. Nothing against bright kids, but a 26-year-old held on to her job as their "big blog"-er.
@Magie Steber: Your approach has one HUGE fatal flaw: You're assuming that there will be small local newspapers around to report the local news and "do some great investigative writing." I'm guessing that you're not doing front-line journalism because, unfortunately, these are the places hurting the most and have the least resources. That model you're imagining has been dead for decades. re: the rest of your post....You're describing some kind of modern day Life magazine, which picked a couple of major issues and presented them in a semi-journalistic form. That might fly. People like to look at pictures. It's easy, and serves as an appetizer to an appreciation and deeper understanding of a culture or an issue. But you can't have that to the exclusion of that deeper understanding. That's Parade.
The Steve Jobs model will never work for newspapers, particularly on a local level. Who is going to pay 99 cents for one story about a grocery store robbery in Tamarac. This isn't a song from your favorite band that you'll play repeatedly.
If anything, antiquated thinking and practices in newsroom and publisher cultures has hurt papers. They saw this coming from a long way off. We live in a visual culture and it's lamentable that people don't read but newspapers waste visual journalism all the time when the readers could get more bang for their buck in a visual journalistic approach. Publish the paper in print 3 or 2 or 1 day a week and open up those websites to all the news that you can fit onto it. No holding back there, it's wide open. There are many ways to at least prolong the life of the print edition of papers but only when and if---I'm not holding my breath---newsroom managers get with the times. Choose 4 or 5 major issues that your readers find critical and report on those. Let small community/neighborhood newspapers report the real local stuff and, especially now with the economic mess, do some great investigative writing. I could go on but no one will read it. Maggie
Yes, Americans will steal stuff until you force them to pay for it. But they must be forced. First, as lisa said, the media companies have to get into the Supreme Court now, if not sooner, and put a goddamned lock on the house, and cool off Google's wild west show.
There's a meet-up taking place in DC this Saturday to discuss alternate revenue models: http://revenuetwopointzero.com
u r right. charging consumers of news has never been the answer. subscription fees NEVER even paid for the newsprint and the presses. let alone delivery. newspapers need to keep it free for the end user. they need to negotiate a licensing fee structure with google and other aggregators who would have NOTHING if not for our content.