The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Paying for the News

Text Size

It wasn't too long ago that Rupert Murdoch wanted to free up content on the WSJ, but now he says, "People reading news for free on the Web, that’s got to change." The NY Times reports on cash-strapped news organizations that want to find a way to make that happen. The problem is that the cat is out of the bag and people are used to paying to read news on the Internet and it's hard to get people to pay. We saw that demonstrated with the Times Select bust.

The only model that I think could have potential would be if there were some sort of consortium allowing readers to subscribe to one service for a flat fee that gave them access to a lot of news sites. If the service achieves mass participation among newspapers and magazines, it will be harder for readers to simply say, "Oh, the NY Times started charging, so I'll just read the Washington Post for free instead." Also, a site that gave access to multiple outlets could convince readers that they're getting good value. The participating news organizations could divide up the revenue proportionally, based on web traffic. The big question would be whether you could make the price high enough for it to still generate sufficient revenue for news organizations once the pot is split up, but still low enough to attract customers.

View all comments (5) | Leave a comment

Eric W| 4.8.09 @ 11:00AM

Antitrust. This would be hard to do. Antitrust law is silly in part because it impedes stuff like this.

Tim| 4.8.09 @ 11:39AM

Thanks to the internet we have an entire generation that believes they have an absolute right to other people's property-for free.
It's the foundation stone for a socialist future. Ironic that some of America's leading advocates of socialism- our great papers- won't be here to enjoy it.

Pashley| 4.8.09 @ 11:58AM

An industry in turmoil, the pricing model doesn't work, and the guys with the legacy costs aren't going to be around long enough for the new model to work. No big deal.

In another industry the saying was that a market was only as good as your stupidest competitor. To make it perfectly harsh, the next model of news distribution won't be set in place until the distributors of free news content go out of business. Oh well.

Pkane| 4.8.09 @ 5:04PM

As I see it, the tough part is that newspapers seem to believe that the net get just be treated like a digital newsstand, which someone turns on their computer to read the NY Times. Most people don't have online loyalties to newspapers. The issue for online news junkies is how to efficiently sort through an infinite torrent of information. We depend, to a large extend, on blogs for this.

Now, I know that if I click on a link and it goes to some one-horse paper demanding that I fill out a form of any kind - even free membership - I get irritated, and usually forget what it was that compelled me to click the link in the first place.

It would seem that if anyone were to charge it would be bloggers, but 1) other free bloggers would quickly fill the void and 2) why should bloggers make money sitting at home while actual reporters are doing the footwork to fuel them with info. For ad revenue? Well, that's the current system.

I don't see it working.

so much information If anything, they depend on blogs to filter the news. who get their news onlin blogging culture and influence.

Tim| 4.8.09 @ 7:38PM

"Now, I know that if I click on a link and it goes to some one-horse paper demanding that I fill out a form of any kind - even free membership - I get irritated, and usually forget what it was that compelled me to click the link in the first place. "

SECONDED!