|
Rupert Murdoch's recent announcement about paid-for news content is generating a widening split between those in favour of free material and those keen to charge fees for access. Several big players like Yahoo!, CNET and CBS News have all declared for free access. But the big dilemma is whether paid-for sources can keep their customers when the same content is readily available free of charge elsewhere.
The paid-for proponents claim that their model is justified because people will pay for specialist content. At one end of the scale that might be the town newspaper with exclusive access to local news or, at the other end, an in-depth market analysis by an influential contributor to a journal like the Financial Times. But it will have to be top-notch material.
The "free" camp also point to the risk of a major drop in their overall site traffic if much of the material is behind a firewall. Online ads and paid-for links - both important revenue earners - could be seriously eroded if regular visitors opted for the 100% free sites instead.
Of course Google inevitably plays a part in this with their own Google News service providing a compendium of stories from some 4,500 English language sources. Google has also become concerned at the reduction in their revenues from websites owned by traditional print media where shrinking readerships appear to have been seriously exacerbated by the recent recession.
In a Guardian article following Murdoch's late summer announcement, Sly Bailey, chief executive of Trinity Mirror, neatly encapsulated the arguments both for and against paid-for news. "I think this is about what the consumer is prepared to pay for. And why would you pay when you can get the same thing somewhere else for free? It is clear that a paid online model already exists for unique, high value and well-differentiated content. However, we very much doubt that it is possible for publishers to charge for general news content when the same content is given away free by the BBC, Google News and others.
"We have no immediate plans to charge for content but, like all media owners making investments in journalism, we certainly wouldn't rule out charging for parts of our content if it was to prove viable in the future. We have just launched Mirrorfootball.co.uk, which offers unique content, a defined audience and engaged, passionate users. This enables us to develop a more diversified business model that does not rely solely on advertising. This, we believe, is the way forward for the foreseeable future."
How the technology moves ahead! Another Guardian Media article in early October reports on the surge in subscriptions for the FT's paid-for service that is being generated by their iPhone app. More at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/05/mobile-phone-applications |
