Loading ...Recently the editor of the Financial Times, Lionel Barber, made a statement that most newspaper websites will be charging for content within a year. It is no secret that the newspaper industry has been hurting lately. With so many people turning to the web for their news, newspaper sales are down and the newpaper organizations have been trying to figure out a way to earn revenue online.
During his speech in London, Barber said that he is unsure of how newspaper organizations will be charging for content. He stated that charging on an article-by-article basis is an option, as well as charging a monthly subscription fee. Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation made a statement back in May proclaiming that his newspaper websites would likely be charging for content within a year as well, and a survey sent out recently by the New York Times asked subscribers if they would be willing to pay a monthly subscription fee of $5 for access to their news content online.
Another aspect to take into consideration is what charging for content will do to bloggers. Countless bloggers rely on the free news provided by online news organizations for their content. Can bloggers afford to pay the monthly subscription fees? But, more importantly can they really afford not to pay the fees?
A move like this will either make or break the newspaper industry. If a subscription fee is put in place news sites could charge more for online ads because the ads would be reaching a more targeted demographic of subscribers, but would the number of readers drop so significantly that it would not pay off for the newspaper organizations in the long run?
No matter which way you spin it, the newspapers have to do something to compete in the digital age, and maybe charging for content is just the ticket. We will just have to wait and see.
I say let them crash and burn. Don’t pay for a news subscription that’s heavily molded for self serving interests!
I wouldn’t pay for a subscription. Even if it was a dollar a month. I still wouldn’t pay.
I think that most of the newspapers are being scooped by tweeters and other online sources anyway, so why would anyone pay for a subscription monthly or otherwise. Let them monetize in the same way the the rest of us do, by advertising revenue. These days newspapers are more likely to use bloggers as a source than the other way around.
nothing
In the course of the day I may visit a dozen or more news websites, charging would prove a litte expensive.
On a serious note, the web is built on linking, and often a person will place a link to a news site or story which in effect says “view this”. If it is pay for content the link-to will not work, it will be blocked.
Hardly the way for a news site to win friend or influence people.
If there is a choice between reading paper and reading screen, I choose paper. I buy my newspaper every day but I would not pay as much for an internet version because of the inconvenience and unpleasantness of reading the screen. If there was a only choice between internet news for which I have to pay and no newspaper or free internet news, I would choose no news and rely on the TV and radio instead.
I certainly see absolutely no merit in paying for news that’s freely available via radio or already paid for in a TV subscription. I don’t buy newspapers now, and rarely ever visit newspaper websites. If I have an interest in a news item, I can find more information without them, and often without the same degree of political bias or deliberate falsehoods perpetrated by newspapers. These days, newspapers are usually only following up the “news that was” anyway, rather than breaking stories for the first time.
I’ll never pay to read news from the websites of our national newspapers because they are owned by the ruling political party and obviously the news presented are full of political bias and deliberate falsehoods (as stated by Steve). I don’t buy newspapers now. I read them online and I will not pay.
With so many sites around, the companies that choose to charge for news will loose out big time. First of all, their existing user base will find another news source. Consequently, they will be showing less ads so they will loose big on that front as well.
Bloggers will do just fine. People watch TV and tweet news on Twitter in any case. I say let them do it! Most of the big news networks are just information repeaters — providing no value or different opinion.
why would i pay for content from a paper’s website and be limited to reading it on screen?..
If i want to take it elsewhere i have to print it, which incurrs an additional cost for paper and ink cartridges (small granted but do it every day for the whole days news content and it builds up)
or i can pick up a paper at the local store and buy it if it looks interesting.. OR just watch the news on the TV like i already do!
This is just another example of the press getting a bit arrogant about their percieved power.. fact is in actual fact these days their power is minimal if it exists at all.
In case the papers in question haven’t actually figured it out, the internet is in fact a Global Entity.. and there will be plenty of sources of the same news from all over the globe.
I love reading the news, but would never pay to do so online. I doubt the BBC will ever charge, likewise Yahoo and CNN.
If other news providers start charging, they will lose big time.
Exceptions might be the FT and WSJ.
Nobody is going to pay for reading news online. I can tell you habit of Third world countries where on an average 5 people read just one newspaper. I asked lot of people about reading newspaper online~ their answer was that although they read news online but reading newspaper is like experience somethng. It is new generation who is in hurry on all fronts may be they like news online but ultimately they also rely on newspaper. Newspapers will never die weather it is India or US.
Hi everyone,
People, people, people….
We all know that the internet is here to stay. And yes, printed newspapers will NEVER die. At least not by a long short.
But did you know there are thousands, if not millions, of people out there who prefer to read news from the internet instead of having to walk or drive to the corner cafe?
Online news is more convenient to read right from your PC than printed news media. Printed newspapers waste time, and time is money.
For example:
Think ‘copy and paste’ compared to ‘cut and re-type’…
Think about bloggers, websites, and other online businesses whose livelihood depends on fresh daily quality content from these news corporations….
Mark my words: In a year or two from today, some of you guys will be willing to pay to get your news online. And you’ll be doing it with a grateful heart.
And Murdock and the other big boys will be smiling all the way to the bank.
Cheers!
Why would I pay to be slammed with advertising. It’s already happening and it’s a nuisance. Since there would be no printing or distribution costs, there would be no need to supplement subscriptions with commercial advertising.
What a minute. It’s not about news, it’s about profits!
Besides, 99% of the same national and world news reported is on every news site. Why pay for it when there will be others who’ll provide the same news for free.
Let us wait and see how the newspaper industry comes up with the charging for content. Obviously the sale of newspaper would be down as there is and option to read news online. Today, almost everyone prefers to read online news.
Journalists cannot survive giving content away for free. I think newspapers should drop out of the Associated Press, which sells their content to internet news providers. They should then form their own organization which would restrict their journalism to those that pay. Selling ads hasn’t cut it for newspaper websites. It’s hard to get everyone to pay for content that’s presently free but there won’t be content soon if newspapers all close.
Newspapers are getting too expensive to buy every day. The dvertising they contain is getting too overwhelming.
Listen to any radio station, watch the news on any of the myriad TV stations.
Do away with the self-opinionated newspaper journalists, let’s just have other media presenting the news that we can assimilate ourselves. The media that I have suggested, (if you’re sensible) is FREE!
I would pay nothing for the quality of news being spewed these days. If its not outright propaganda or op eds, its thinly veiled advertising or social engineering pap or simply embedded spin. Journalism is nearly dead. News used to mean something, now its read between the lines for the true story. Much of what passes for news is drivel. ie Michael Jackson, octamom, “pro” sports and Palin’s shenanigans. Fodder for the braindead. The quality needs to go in before the price goes up. Real issues need to be forefront.
Can someone update me about micro payments? Whatever we will have to pay or not in the near future, if no micro payment system WORLDWIDE is implemented, that will make the whole thing a little bit an utopia!
Thanks for your posting on the traveling industry. I’d personally also like to include that if you’re a senior taking into account traveling, it really is absolutely imperative that you buy traveling insurance for older persons. When traveling, senior citizens are at biggest risk being in need of a health care emergency. Obtaining right insurance policies package for your age group can safeguard your health and give you peace of mind.
It is very interesting…thank you for share,look forword to more information!