Newspaper Experiments With New Paid Content Model
from the pay-up dept
As newspapers struggle to transform their business models for the internet, one model that doesn't appear too promising is that favored by the New York Times, with its TimesSelect offering. The hope that it can charge extra for online access to its most popular columnists hasn't earned the company a lot of money, while costing them valuable readership and influence. The Sacramento Bee will begin experimenting with a slightly different model, as it puts premium content about California state politics behind an expensive $499/year paywall. The service will be marketed towards lobbyist firms, and other professionals with a vested interest in political issues. The above New York Times story discussing the Sacramento Bee's strategy compares it to TimesSelect, but it actually seems a bit smarter. The paper isn't going to put any existing content behind a paywall; instead subscribers will get extra content, along with early access to the paper's articles, which for those who are involved in state politics could be very useful. There's no reason a newspaper company has to limit itself just to a general news product. If it has a unique angle on an industry or something that can't be replicated elsewhere, then it makes sense to offer more products that play to its strengths. At $499 it's still going to have a tough time proving its value, but since the intended customers are mainly going to be businesses, that may not be as tough as it would seem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Even in the absence of a
It is a really interesting idea: if we think of newspaper companies as "organizations that employ people who have talent and training for finding, analyzing, and presenting information" rather than "organizations that produce newspapers" this makes a great deal of sense.
If my (admittedly limited) experience is an indicator, newspapers direct a meaningful chunk of resources towards trimming down the content that they produce into "all the news that's fit to print," to coin a phrase. Taking some articles and analysis that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day and trying to turn them into a new revenue stream is a nice take on the situation.
As you note, it's most compelling for a subset of information that's likely to be of value to people with money (i.e. "interest groups" in the most abstract sense), but since that can encompass a lot of companies, action groups, and what-have-you, there's a potential large-ish niche audience for many different kinds of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even in the absence of a
Too bad so many of the old newspaper folks are confusing medium and message. Mike could hire some professional reporters and nuke the 'times!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure news media obtains access to 'news' at a cost (ie: exclusive interviews, costly investigations, etc....), but when they start charging for that information unevenly, they start looking more like a business and less of a public service.
This model probably works ok for politics, but would never fly for business and stocks...
-E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: looking more like a business ?
They've always been businesses - profitable ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]