4 reasons why the Great Paywall of Murdoch will succeed
By Ian GRAYSON
Rupert Murdoch's decision to start charging for the online versions of his flagship Times and Sunday Times newspapers is a bold step, but one that will ultimately go a long way to ensuring the future of quality journalism.
The question of whether to place newspapers behind a paywall has generated fierce debate for more than a year as print publishers desperately look for new sources of revenue to keep their operations afloat. Murdoch's move will be closely watched by all and, if successful, will cause a rush of other newspapers to do exactly the same thing.
Those against paywalls argue that it's ludicrous to expect people to pay for something they've been getting on line for nothing. Chanting the "News is free" mantra, they say anyone putting their papers behind a paywall will destroy their readerships and cause their business to wither and die.
Anti-paywall advocates such as the outspoken media critic Jeff Jarvis says Murdoch will be "leaving his children with a dry, dead beast, the remains of his once proud if not great newspaper empire." The likes of Jarvis could not be more wrong.
Here's four reasons why newspaper paywalls are the way of the future:
1. News ain't news: It's true that general news has become a commodity on the internet, but it's wrong to put all news in the same category. While it's unlikely anyone will pay for celebrity gossip and coverage of breaking events, quality journalism is a very different deal. People who value well written stories, quality audio visual resources and informed comment will be happy to pay for it.
2. A one-stop destination: Newspapers work because they bring multiple elements into a single, easily digestable whole. Sure, some of it might be available in other places on the internet, but having content filtered, edited and presently as a whole makes it vastly more usable. It's called adding value.
3. New platforms: Attention is focused on Apple's iPad and its clear that it (or future devices like it) will provide a new and compelling way to enjoy news content. Having a slickly presented package of news delivered to such a device will be so compelling people will pay for it.
4. Quality versus quantity: There's no doubt that traffic to the websites of The Times and Sunday Times will drop dramatically once the paywall is in place. However the traffic that remains will be vastly more valuable. Rather than getting excited about millions of visitors who come to the sites briefly before clicking away, the papers will have a core group of loyal readers that will visit on a regular basis. Such a group is much more attractive to advertisers and therefore far more lucrative for publishers. Less can be more.
The next 12 months is going to be a fascinating time of evolution in the newspaper industry. The Great Paywall of Murdoch is only the first step.
[Disclosure: The author has spent a considerable part of his working life in the employ of News Corporation publications and continues to derive income from them]
Subscribe to Hydrapinion
|
Recent Posts
10 comments
As a publisher, I identify that not all stories should be 'free' as, as you say Ian, quality journalism, investigation, testing etc has to be worth something. A fluff piece is a different story.
This is the future to ensure that we not only continue to exist, but also produce quality words.
Thanks for pointing that fact out!
Isn't a large part of the problem that not enough people are prepared to pay for quality journalism?
"papers work because they bring multiple elements into a single, easily digestable whole."
This is exactly why I still buy newspapers. The trouble with online content is that you tend to read only stories that match your immediate interests and prejudices. With print, the eye travels over every page and you're more likely to read or at least become aware of a broader range of news and opinions.
"Having a slickly presented package of news delivered to such a device will be so compelling people will pay for it."
Only if it's substantially cheaper than the print edition. I for one won't be spending (say) $7 for the electronic version of a magazine.
Isn't that an argument in favour of newspaper charging for access to electronic versions?
Subscribe to Hydrapinion
Ian Grayson has been a technology journalist for more than 15 years. A former IT editor of The Australian newspaper, he now runs his own freelance business, crafting stories for a range of publications and web sites. He is intrigued by the power that technology wields in the world of work - both for better and for worse - and in this blog offers insights into what it all might mean.