If in 2009 you are still going to take money for access to the news, you will end
Today, I once again meet with a group of editors with whom we are studying business models for online news publications. To their credit, it should be noted that they do not raise the topic of micropayments, and the issue of paid access is viewed from a theoretical perspective. However, it sometimes seems that some have just woken up. It was as if they did not see what happened in the last ten years. For these unfortunates, I cite a few quotes to warn against another wave of children's questions on the topic “Can I take money for access to the news?”
From Recovering Journalist :
“Let's count. Imagine that a large city’s daily newspaper costs $ 20 per year per person for accessing its website, while 500,000 people are willing to read it online (note that the content is unique there, there is no such thing anywhere else, so no refuses to pay). What will be the income? $ 10 million a year! ”
')
From “If Facebook is free, they will not pay journalists of the local newspaper” :
“These guys are piously convinced that everything has an alternative , that if Facebook were not, there would be another site capable of adequately replacing it, moreover, for free.
Now answer me: If these guys do not want to pay for Facebook, for what they do every day, for what they like, where they spent a lot of time, they spent a lot of energy on creating a network of friends and applications, and all this is free ... Will they become Do these guys pay half a penny for access to the news? ”
From Jeff Jarvis :
“Micropayments have not justified themselves anywhere, except in cases where the business model is built on a strictly controlled distribution channel (for example, mobile phones and iTunes). The New York Times and other newspapers refused a paid subscription because the cost of organizing such a channel was too high for them. The newspaper cartel is an oxymoron, because publishers have never been able to organize themselves together (the last US attempt to do this — the New Century Network made — failed miserably). Charity is fine, but even the Scott Trust, which generously supports this newspaper, did not grow out of pure altruism, but out of the need to get rid of taxes that would only aggravate the situation of the newspaper and force it to sell. State support for newspapers has already been discussed here, but personally I think that the press with such support will cease to be objective. Kindle is cool, but its audience is too small. ”
From Printed Matters :
“Any person from the content business knows that his product is not a newspaper, not a transfer, not a magazine, not news, not the content itself, or even information. Not! These are readers. Your product - your readers, your audience. That is what you sell to advertisers. More readers = more advertising = more money. In the old days, newspapers were forced to introduce a paid subscription to cover the costs of delivering the newspaper to the reader. But wait! Now, after all, there is no delivery! So why should we introduce a fee and limit your audience?
Paid access to content does not work. And there is nothing to argue about it. One can only sit and watch the evidence of that . ”
From Recovering Journalist :
“Let's count. Imagine that a large city’s daily newspaper costs $ 20 per year per person for accessing its website, while 500,000 people are willing to read it online (note that the content is unique there, there is no such thing anywhere else, so no refuses to pay). What will be the income? $ 10 million a year! ”
')
From “If Facebook is free, they will not pay journalists of the local newspaper” :
“These guys are piously convinced that everything has an alternative , that if Facebook were not, there would be another site capable of adequately replacing it, moreover, for free.
Now answer me: If these guys do not want to pay for Facebook, for what they do every day, for what they like, where they spent a lot of time, they spent a lot of energy on creating a network of friends and applications, and all this is free ... Will they become Do these guys pay half a penny for access to the news? ”
From Jeff Jarvis :
“Micropayments have not justified themselves anywhere, except in cases where the business model is built on a strictly controlled distribution channel (for example, mobile phones and iTunes). The New York Times and other newspapers refused a paid subscription because the cost of organizing such a channel was too high for them. The newspaper cartel is an oxymoron, because publishers have never been able to organize themselves together (the last US attempt to do this — the New Century Network made — failed miserably). Charity is fine, but even the Scott Trust, which generously supports this newspaper, did not grow out of pure altruism, but out of the need to get rid of taxes that would only aggravate the situation of the newspaper and force it to sell. State support for newspapers has already been discussed here, but personally I think that the press with such support will cease to be objective. Kindle is cool, but its audience is too small. ”
From Printed Matters :
“Any person from the content business knows that his product is not a newspaper, not a transfer, not a magazine, not news, not the content itself, or even information. Not! These are readers. Your product - your readers, your audience. That is what you sell to advertisers. More readers = more advertising = more money. In the old days, newspapers were forced to introduce a paid subscription to cover the costs of delivering the newspaper to the reader. But wait! Now, after all, there is no delivery! So why should we introduce a fee and limit your audience?
Paid access to content does not work. And there is nothing to argue about it. One can only sit and watch the evidence of that . ”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/288166/
All Articles