An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Who is Olberman’s “Best Person in the World” this week?

Truman and Churchill No Better Than Stalin: Izvestia, Russia »

176 Newspapers Join Up to Charge You–Online Users– $50-$100-$1000s A Year to Read News

Posted by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Deputy Managing Editor, Columnist in At TMV, Education, Media, Society.
Aug 13th, 2009 | Comments

Not sure those 176 realize many of them just signed their death warrants to compete with biggie corps that have far deeper pockets.

Based on the model as stated so far which has slim details… To choose more than one paper to read, if one had to pay, would cost the heavy reader of news anywhere from $100 to $17,000 a year just to read news. Steven Brill, above, is one of the masterminds. He says there will be some sort of take-one/take- all subscription rate.

Perhaps. But wasnt that what many of us thought was so great about internet. We didnt have to take ‘packages.’ We could hunt and gather.

Compare this move to acticle just two days ago here on Rupert Murdock’s pointing his horns toward pay-for-online-news after saying, Oh no, I want open access for all… when he was snarfing up the Wall Street Journal as his latest diamond in his gaggle of cable news station ownership, radio stations, social media, and whatever else he can buy up… while Feds no longer seem to be able to even lip synch the word ‘monopoly.’

When one or ten or one hundred monopolize the gateways to the news that used to be ‘free’,
it cuts off investigative reporting of public interest and need– and covens only those who cannot afford to buy online news….
cuts off the cries for help from across the world… unless you pay to hear them…

this is back to the old mogul model of attempting to create status in those who can afford a few hundred or a few thou a year to pay to gain access… and those who instantly become the great unwashed and therefor left out of info and world of opportunities and peril, because they cannot afford to pay.

This so-called ‘high minded’ decrepit model for attempting to once again become The Humongous Controllers of News, that is, ‘the new gatekeepers’ to keep the rabble bloggers, citizen readers and writers from the ‘elite’ castle doors, has already fired, early retired and let go with ill will, thousands of gifted journalists across America. Fool journalist once, shame on monopolist. Fool journalist twice, journalist has lost all instincts for being treated as a true and talented human being.

By Matthew Flamm at Crains Business online, New York City:

“The closely watched plan to get online users to pay to read news stories has taken another step forward.

Journalism Online, the e-commerce startup dedicated to helping news Web sites monetize their content, has reached agreements with 506 newspapers and magazines…176 daily papers.

Together with what are described by the company as “leading global news sites,” the properties that have signed letters of intent to become Journalism Online affiliates represent more than 90 million monthly visitors from around the world.

The affiliates will identify themselves and explain their individual payment plans in separate announcements, according to the company.

Founded by media veterans Steven Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery, Jr., Journalism Online offers a range of payment options that target the most loyal 10% of a site’s audience, with the aim of wringing subscription fees from readers without driving away users and hurting advertising…

Publishers “are rolling up their sleeves to figure out with us exactly what kind of package is right for them,” Mr. Brill said in a statement.
The company expects publishers to be able to charge $50 to $100 annually per subscriber. The services will launch in the fall.
Some analysts have questioned whether most newspaper Web sites will be able to offer content that readers will want to pay for, but Journalism Online remains confident that their model will work.

you can read the rest here:

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

tidbits

If this means I will no longer be able to start my day doing the WaPo crossword, I'll be really annoyed.

On the serious side, this seems likely to fail. If they are prepared to reduce online readership by 90%, that would have to have a negative impact on their online advertsing buys and pricing, even if they manage to keep a "loyal 10%".

NYT tried charging for content for a while and eventually took it down because of the crippling effects on readership and the inability to compete with free news sources. This is a bit different because of the number of publications participating. But the model seems doomed unless it is a full monopoly.

It is understandable that newspapers want to find a model that will avoid bankruptcy. I'm not sure this is that model from what little I know about it.

Those of us who enjoy staying current need to convene a brainstorming session that will find ways to provide financial viability to news sources without pricing ordinary people into becoming an uninformed rabble.

StockBoySF

I know what I won't be reading. I probably don't read them anyway... unless someone sends me an interesting link.

archangel

tidbits
you have the operative word: as you see, the glomming together a syndicate of a couple hundred newspapers seems just that; monopolize the river/ control travel and flow.

NYT did charge near $90 for access. Prob was Google aggregated and duplicated as articles flew through the air, and one could find most any nyt article for free at another link.

I think your idea of how financial viability might come to newspapers prob has far more to do with diversifying offerings by each company, becoming a publishing company for instance, manufacturing hard goods of various, in order to support their news business. Hardly any business can make a living and remain alive without diversifying within their own niche. It's not just loss of advertising Tidbits; it's also loss of subsidy by advertisers. If most readers could hear what used to go on in editorial/marketing/advertising meetings about not raking major advertisers, readership would have thought that ought to be story of the century. I think you know what I mean. To believe otherwise is incredibly naive. WaPo's latest and humongous being caught soliciting power for money, is not new. But hidden from most newsreaders. It is how it has been.

And been.

Take subsidy/ protection away from several large corps that currently enjoy it: drs.(via insurances), farmers (via literal subsidies to plant, not plant), corporate (where do we end the list?)... and all will be looking to charge subscriber fees for access to something or other too. They dont seem to grok that the old model of colonization does not work well any longer. The animals are out of their cages so to speak. Talent is unleashed literally millions of places now. The old mogul model is dead without being supplemented/ subsidized by log rollers. The old model of taking vast amounts of money on the daily dole to not just advertise, but to protect from peering too closely, is over.
Just my two cents.
dr.e

archangel

Stockboy, you bring up an interesting point; wonder how links would occur in this pay-for-what-used-to-be-free model. Right now, occasionally a writer here links to one of the large papers, often it's WaPo, and instead of uploading the article, one gets a flat screen, saying subscribe or register et al.

I think you're right, a lot of people, yourself included may already not read the comglomerate papers being put together. One of the things I've noticed over these years I've been at TMV, is how often people like yourself are way better informed from reading across the web in their own interest areas, than before when everyone sort of knew only the top two hard news stories of the day locally and another few hard news stories perhaps nationally, and then .

There is something to be said to all knowing the same stories daily, but there's much to be said about cross-fertilization where different poeple bring different stories of concern to them... and therefore, persepctives... especially when they are trying to create something good, or make something better... to find their like-kind, or to work together.

thanks SB
dr.e

mariaycorazon

I think the exploitation of on-line news will only make people get their news elsewhere...like on television. This is the common practice anyway. I usually look for the veracity of a news article online or opinions such as those on TMV to frame my thinking and opinions. I think media outlets are scrambling to influence the information received over the internet but it is a lost cause...too late we know how to get our own information!

StockBoySF

dr.e, you're welcome.

Pete Abel

I'm NOT fond of this idea, far from it, but seriously: How long can we continue to pay nothing for something? Yes, I know: There's always advertising, and perhaps the major outlets will figure out the formula to get more from online ads. But, if everything is "free" to the end user, the final model probably requires a combination of things:
1. More (and more intrusive) advertising
2. Not-for-profit status (ala NPR, PBS)
3. Massive consolidation.

All of that means we can say goodbye to local professional journalism and news divesity. At best, we'll end up (in the US) with regional news dominated by 4-5 major news-generating groups (maybe 2-3). And that might (emphasis on might) be more detrimental than millions of us paying a reasonable sum per year (e.g., $30) to sustain diverse and localized news organizations.

Maybe.

archangel

I think Pete, from past experience, it depends very much on Who the principles are who corral any of your three suggestions. All three are already in play, and are already 'owned' by people who each have their own political agendas and are ramping them up through buys and through pulling together new syndicates. They are wealthy, 'connected' to one another of like-kind, and do not know/ have the concerns that you and others have re flow of information of many kinds. Been there. Witnessed.

Not sure, but seems huge opportunity for 'little guys' to define their own models without being immediately eaten up by corporate. At least until they are successful. In old communications business model, as you know, mogul vision will buy up competition and let it languish or die (viz napster for instance) as a way of killing the competition... cheaper to buy it off, than compete with it. This philosophy in those who carry it, is still one of the radicals of how communications' enterprise is to be enacted...

Having been in the 'halls' of NPR and PBS, trust... it's run no differently than Fox, NBC, Clear Channel, et al, in terms of tight inner circle, grotesque inflations, and giving no care to affiliates and community broadcasting, in fact starving those below the divisions that show above ground ...on radio and tv .

I'm with you on asking what model will support best for the most? And open to many ideas. What will leave wide open the door to talent and depth of thought by the many, both readers and writers, and huge diversity of thought, not just what we hear so much of now, screeching.

However, I am most concerned at the moment, not with only what models and how... but esp with who. The visionary 'who' has the potential with unheard of means available in our time, to unleash the greatest awakening of thought and meaning through news flow that has ever existed... or they can garrot it for their own small-group of gnomes agenda... and let the users/ readership only imagine the flow of info is undammed.

Here, where I live, sadly we are living with, as you say, loss of " local professional journalism and news diversity." When The Rocky closed because Scripps Howard men, fresh from their yachts, said, it was too marginal in income, and gave all journos, pressmen, delivery mom and pops, editors ONE day notice... we lost some of the most passionate people dedicated to bringing the news to readers that had thrived for 150 years here.

Hang in there. We all will.

dr.e

blog comments powered by Disqus