New Study Reveals (Duh) Very Few People Will Pay For News Online
from the ya-think? dept
We've been pointing this out for ages, but a new survey once again confirms that very few people would be willing to pay for news content online. In this case, only 5% said they'd pay for their newspaper if it put up a paywall, with most saying they'd find free alternatives instead. And, I'd argue (as I have before) that even that 5% is quite high. It's a survey, meaning that it's what people say they would do, rather than what they'd actually do. That means, you can probably lop off at least 50% of that 5%. At least. And yet, industry folks still think that 15% will pay? Good luck...
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
Filed Under: news, paid content
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I spend quite a bit of time reading articles on reddit, probably more than I should, but I've noticed that there are fewer linked articles behind paywalls, and when one is posted many readers immediately down vote it because it's behind paywall. Any company that locks up their content is soon going to find that while they may have increased their revenue in the short term, in the long term they've lost their relevance because their customers have found other sources for the same information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical web business model
It was free, they had millions of users. They were no doubt burning VC money. Then, when I couldn't live without it, they started charging. Guess I'm one of the 0.? % that chose to stay with them (until they hiked prices so far and I thought they were taking the mickey, but that was 2 years later).
You only need to monetise a fraction of a huge web audience to pull in revenue.
But as your have been saying, if the SAME THING is available free elsewhere people will desert you.
They should be building something unique FIRST, an experience no other site offers, with a friction free registration gateway that is free, THEN thinking about monetising it later. Maybe by ads, maybe subscription, maybe pay per view. There are only some many times that a given headline can be read by everyone in the world before it is not news any more. That large but finite number is what they need to win market share of.
But like bigfoot, they have to make you need it before they dare to charge for it. And so far the individual sites of the "old" news media are offering me less value than my favourite aggregator.
I'll stay with a site I really like if/when they ask for a small sum of money (maybe if they promise to remove slow loading ads or popups into the bargain), but they have to make me really like it FIRST.
The classic pre bubble internet business plan was to build traffic then monetise. But this is no good with fickle traffic. The model should be to build MEMBERSHIP then monetise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical web business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Would Pay Up To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe people would pay for a bundle of news like hundreds of news for $19.99/month but I doubt that.
Still this is good news even if you have 0.5% paying it can be profitable if you reach outside your borders and start accepting money from all over the world, but I'm not sure if governments would be willing to allow other players in their fields...oh well even if it is only in one place still is a good news that means that those 5% or less will contribute to the cash flow that could be complemented with other services that are still not in place, news media wasted a lot of time waiting, is time they start experimenting and fast or they will be replaced by minor players that didn't even dream off getting that much from paying costumers and don't have seem a good meal in ages and would take anything the market gives them LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool augmented reality
Would people pay for a service that would show at your cell screen what is happening right at what your cell camera is pointing?
Wouldn't be cool to see all that happened in one location or be guided to that location by your cell like in this video ?
And don't forget you can always kill zombies
Could photographic cameras link with cells to get some cool effects or info from people who photographed that location before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tablet
The new mac tablet should be brought out with such an itunes system.
Take your tablet in the morning, and start reading on the train or your local cafe, itunes uploaded it automatically into your tablet.
I'm transcribed to a magazine and i can view it online... but actually i hate it that they won't give me a pdf file of the magazine. I have to be online to read it.
Free wifi all over the world is not a common gift. Free internet is something for 2025.
Subscription etc... all done thru the itunes networking service, which would also increase browsing and finding new available magazines.
This will "save" the journal industry just like it's keeping the music for this moment "alive" (with a breathing machine but still alive...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tablet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tablet
If I was able to download something to my phone or computer and read it on the journey then I would be more likely to be willing to pay for it. For myself it is not that important a service but it may suit many others.
As for the chap talking about it being "a good thing" if as much as 0.5% of people subscribe to papers online as it will provide sufficient funds. The subscriptions costs would have to be huge as the papers will lose the majority of their ad revenue. Afterall who is going to advertise in a paper which has 0.5% of the readers they used to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short stories in cellphones are a big hit in japan!
Could this be done with investigative reporting? or other kind of news? or be a feature of a paid service like the old cartoons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are there any 16-24 year olds that have newspaper subscriptions right now? Do most 16 and 17 year olds even have access to a credit card (or debit card) which would allow them to pay for online content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missunderstanding
Sorry what I meant to say was that there is a possibility that 0.5% can bring in profits if you have a big audience or spammers would be out of a job, but even if you don't have that kind of audience you still have 0.5% of something that can bring in some revenue and if you add up that to other means probably news media companies can turn a profit again.
So in that context even 0.5% is good news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missunderstanding
My point on the advertising revenue still stands though. The subscription revenue will have to cover the costs of the paper because the same level of ad revenue will not be forthcoming due to the drastic decrease in readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was contemplating that fact the other morning ...
I love the news ... I recall making time to read it from cover to cover when I was younger. I would love to subscribe to it again but cannot justify the waste (even recycled).
Our daily does provide an online option to those who pay for the physical paper. I am torn ... I like the news, but don't need the paper. And I'm still not convinced that their online offering is worth my dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll screw it up further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]