Print newspaper sales are falling dramatically and the demand to have high quality content online is replacing our need to buy physical papers. However in the past the only way to pay for the journalism online has been through advertising, which simply cannot create enough revenue. So newspapers have had to find a new way to make their money and the Murdoch papers have stuck their heads out and tried it first. They’ve raised a pay wall, meaning that you have to pay to access The Times and News of the World online, but is that really the way forward?
The Murdoch papers were not the only ones to start charging for access this summer. Smaller publications have been forced to do so because they simply can’t find another way, as we can see from this quote.
But after raising a pay wall the small magazine experienced a lot of trouble because at the moment we don’t expect to pay for content. So in order to find out what exactly public opinion about paying for an online subscription was, I conducted a survey.
Only 3% of those that took the survey currently pay for a subscription online.
But surprisingly almost 55% said they would consider paying, but don’t. Respondents explained; “If the content is strong and unique enough, I'd pay.”
“As a journalist, I appreciate that content is very valuable and has taken time, the use of sources etc and should be appreciated.”
One respondent said that they would pay “In order to help secure quality journalism. And if I'm offered something additional on the web which I won't access without subscription.”
Those who said they wouldn’t ever consider paying said “Information is freely available in multiple locations and the internet spreads this quickly so there is never really a need [to pay]” and “I shouldn't have to!” “I can get it free online.”
So I conducted interviews to get a fuller explanation of these opinions. Anonymous Interviewee 1 didn’t think it was wrong for the Murdoch papers to ask people to pay but believes it is a mistake that will lose them readership. He dislikes the papers currently under a pay wall anyway though and would rarely use them as a source.
However he said he would be annoyed if the papers he read went under a pay wall as he doesn’t think it’s fair to have to pay for information. He’s aware that The Guardian charge for access to archive stories and thinks this is wrong and will put off students and young people from looking at what would otherwise be a useful source.
Interviewee 2, (who I chose to be part of a very different demographic of 46 year old interviewee 1) said “NO!” She would not pay for online subscriptions either because she thinks it would be cheaper to get it in print or find it free elsewhere. It would have to offer something extra to make her pay. However she thinks she would consider paying for an online subscription is she was in a full time job where she needed a range of information a lot but for personal use wouldn’t bother spending the money.
SEE 'Comparative method' blog for notes on this slide.
And not only would people feeling they did not need to pay cause problems for anyone trying to raise a pay wall,
building this barrier around your information takes you out of what is now very important. The online conversation. This is the linking and discussion across blogs and social networks, meaning what your journalists write is less likely to be influential, and thus demoting your brand.
Wikipedia founder pointed out here-
And researcher and professor pointed out-
Currently online pay walls are so new it’s hard to tell what might happen. Figures show The Times are losing print readers and the stat’s they’ve released themselves say they’ve got a decent amount of subscribers but from both my primary and secondary research I have found that the public generally seem unsure.
Now that options are running out, only time will tell how online journalism is going to work in the future and how all the clever little writers will find their next paycheck.
No comments:
Post a Comment