Would You Pay for New York Times Online?
The Incredible Hulk movie download That’s the question James Poniewozik asks at Time’s Tuned In blog.
“The questions are, simply: what/who will pay, will it work, and what will it pay for? ….Beyond that, the shoulds are just a philosophical exercise. New systems for funding the time to do journalism are not going to appear just because you, I or Bill Keller thinks they should. Few people will pay for news because they should. And news media are not going to find a way to bring you content for free just because they should.”
I say the NY Times will fail with a for-pay service unless it does two things. One, treat the for-pay service as an application, not a content offering. Two, make the for-pay service available on a commerce platform we’re all already using, namely iTunes or Amazon.
Too many newspaper publishers are stuck viewing the world from a “content is my value” orientation. This confuses them into thinking anyone has ever paid for his or her newspaper subscription because the writing is so darn good that riots in Iran covered by any other author just wouldn’t convey the news. Oh please. I get it that investigative reporting — the hard work of tracking down the facts and verifying them on certain stories — isn’t free, but the major newspapers don’t have a monopoly on reporting either, and most of the news we read everyday doesn’t require Bob Woodward to find another Deep Throat.
An “app” orientation assumes that what we readers are paying for (since the dawn of newspapers) is service. Two services, mostly. One, getting the news to our doorstep or a newsstand conveniently located on our walk to the train station. ISPs and web browsers on our cellphones have solved the news-delivery problem; we’re not likely to pay a publisher for home delivery again. Two, culling Entropy movie
the over-abundant supply of current events down to the handful of news items I need to be aware of — those five stories each day elected by the NYT editors to make the front page. We pay for the filtering, not the quality, of the content.
I’m sure there are other valuable news services beyond those two. My point is that we are all more likely to hand over money for a “service” than for a bag of content. The news organizations that lean into services will win the day.
I pay for a online subscription for WSJ, I like that paper, and I have had it delivered to my door for a while. I don’t think I will have the paper ever delivered again, I use google reader, and if the feed looks good, I will read the whole article. I like the idea of applications, something similar to reader, or a feed that is simple. I am trying to phase out all paper media in my life. I am sick of the clutter it brings.
On a different note, I wouldn’t pay for new york times at any cost, but that is my opinion, I think they are on there way out, they have borrowed money at high interest rates, and there reader base is shrinking. They have been to far to the left in there reporting, and it has caused some major backlash.
Also, I think the Kindle is a great idea, i currently use the iPhone app to purchase books from amazon, I don’t have a kindle yet, but am saving up for one. I will have my WSJ sub go to my kindle when I purchase one.
good article, I think you are totally right.
Never would pay for a subscription, but would do micro payments for specific content. Key is what you mention about that being thru itunes/Amazon or other common platforms we are used to.