Posts Tagged 'pay wall'

Pierre Omidyar’s Honolulu local news site goes live

I’m watching the development of Honolulu Civil Beat with great interest.

Backed by the founder of Ebay, Pierre Omidyar, the online news project was launched earlier this week.

Subscribers will play a key part in the operation, which allows them to discuss issues affecting their communities through a concept called the ‘civil square’ hosted by journalists with different expert areas.

In an article on the site headlined ‘A New Approach to Journalism’, Founding Editor John Temple (formerly of the Rocky Mountain News) explains what it hopes to provide:

We start this news service with the belief that we’re here to serve you. That means our daily work is to ask the important questions citizens might have in the face of the complex issues facing our community. And to answer them in a way that helps members reach an informed opinion, based on our reporting and the discussion that will take place as we together create the new civic square.

You’ll find that our initial coverage is centered around five fundamental beats: Hawaii, Honolulu, Education, Land and Money. For each of these coverage areas, we have identified critical issues – and now that you’re here we hope you’ll help us sharpen our focus.

The monthly fee of $19.99 to use the site is generating the most comment.

Here’s Daily Finance’s take on the pay model:

Skeptics say no one will pay such a princely sum (in Internet terms) to participate in a local journalism site, and a lack of participants could doom the online “civic square” to failure.

But Omidyar’s new startup could be timing the bottom of the paid-content market perfectly. For starters, the subtle reeducation of Web users that not all content is free is well underway. The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are all on paths to paid content in their online forms. Since these are “must read” publications that drive lots of other news coverage, it’s hard to ignore this trend.

Paidcontent’s view:

If they were aiming for a straight news service, then it makes sense as a business-model decision to let people know from the top that getting a quality product will take their financial support. But a civic-square vision carries a different kind of connotation and a suggestion of more, not less, openness. The implicit suggestion is that only people who pay are worth listening to. That seems to run counter to Omidyar’s description of the richness and diversity of Hawaii and “discussions that involve a diversity of points of view, conducted in a respectful and good-faith search for common ground and meaningful compromise.”

With a billionaire’s backing this project has plenty of room for experimentation, but it will be interesting to see what the people Honolulu make of it!

B

Pay walls, strategy and content…

Yesterday’s New York Times’ announcement has solidified a few things in my head.

Here goes…

1. I need to get this one out of the way first, what type of long-term, strategic planning is going on in the New York Times Co that it got rid of NYT Select three years ago and the more than 220,000 subscribers that went with it only to introduce a new pay model now. I understand there are differences between the two models but it would have made for a nice customer base to start off with.

More importantly though, this indecisiveness about whether online content should or should not be paid for is becoming more confusing to the consumer by the day. This is not helping the industry in the long run.  It is good NYT has decided their content, be it in print or online, has value that should paid for, I just wish they had decided earlier and stuck to it. Trends in advertising, while of course important, should not be the determining factor as they may have been with the Select decision.

2. With that out of the way, I think it is good that it is not a straight pay wall. Although metering could just lead to reduced news consumption by NYT.com readers (and generally if this was to be replicated across the industry), I would rather have fewer readers and more revenue than the unsustainable position of lots of readers and no revenue.

3. Now is a time of survival for newspapers/organisations – they have to try and hang on – by whatever means necessary. Given the changes in the industry, there are clearly too many newspapers and the economics of content have changed. Those who manage to survive the next decade will emerge with less competition from established media organisations – giving them a privileged and potentially profitable position.

4. This is not a carte blanche to over-zealous, money counting publishers. You need to invest to get good content that is worthy of a pay wall. It should be something people have to read and value as the only reliable source in town. Good quality, well investigated and reported journalism that people can depend upon will be the scarce, but in-demand commodity.

Of course I am sure some of these arguments were heard back when TV news emerged and will be rolled out for any subsequent innovations but I strongly believe people have been placing too much emphasis on the platform as the commodity not the content. Spare it another thought.

B

NYT to start charging online readers

The New York Times Company has announced today that it will be introducing a ‘paid model’ for its website NYTimes.com at the beginning of 2011.

The new approach, referred to as the metered model, will offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number. This will enable NYTimes.com to create a second revenue stream and preserve its robust advertising business. It will also provide the necessary flexibility to keep an appropriate ratio between free and paid content and stay connected to a search-driven Web.

Read the full statement from the company here

More on this later…


Blathnaid Healy

My Twitter Feed

a

All views and opinions are my own. © Blathnaid Healy 2008