media
8 Sep 2009
Actually, News Corp's Paywall Might Work
Those dismissing Murdoch's plan to make us pay for online content seem to be overlooking some very important facts, writes Jason Wilson
The notion that News Corp's proposed paywall "won't work" is in danger of becoming common sense. The problem with this is that, on the contrary, I can see how it might well work. I'm not saying that it necessarily will, or that it's the best move for them to make. But they do have the track record, the content library and the market power to give it a serious shake.Some of the people in the "information wants to be free" crowd, who say News can't do it, make some unwarranted assumptions.
First, they assume that News will only enclose the newpaper content that it currently gives away, and that they will enclose all of it.
Second, they assume that there will always be a free equivalent to anything that News puts behind the wall, meaning that people won't have any reason to pay for it.
Third, some seem to think that just because they don't like something, that means there's no market for it.
Fourth, they assume that no News journalists have skills, expertise or access that might be worth paying for.
And last, there seems to be a belief in some quarters that News Corporation is largely staffed by idiots.
I don't think any of that is necessarily true, and if News Corp has any sense, it'll draw on its corporate experience with pay television to leverage audiences and money using niche content of various kinds.
Take my old mate, Bolta. As the owners of Fox News, News Corp knows that celebrity blowhards are in themselves a powerful category of niche content. They can be converted into audiences and cash. If it were me designing this, I wouldn't move all of Bolt's content inside the wall. I'd leave the blog as a freebie, letting him stay in the blogosphere fray and allowing it and his mainstream media appearances to act as a promo for new forms of value-added content. This might include video monologues or interviews, podcasts, or even some form of interactive, subscriber-only talkback or chat facility. Whether we like it or not, Bolta is a celebrity with fans who may be prepared to pay for more varied multimedia content. They might also be prepared to think about a package with more of the same from Albrechtsen, Blair etc. Charismatic "stars" like these are unique by definition, they're exclusive to News, and the sad-sacks of the independent hard-right blogosphere don't amount to a substitute.
Another huge asset that News has successfully deployed in the past is sport. As Dave Gaukroger pointed out the other day, the Tele and the Herald Sun are still the leaders in sports coverage in their markets and that coverage is enhanced by News's unique advantages, like owning half of the NRL. Sure that doesn't by itself make all the difference. Although I'm a rugby league fan, and I think that the Tele's sports journos do a great job, I don't think I'd pay for what's currently on offer at the Tele's site, news.com.au or foxsports.com.au. But what if they put a very basic coverage outside the wall, and used their advantages to provide something unique for subscribers? If there were on-demand or streaming games including lower-grade matches, exclusive interviews with or commentary from current coaches and players, comprehensive statistics, online versions of Fox Sports NRL commentary, in-depth analysis and maybe extras like liveblogging coverage of games, they might even get $30 a month out of me.
And what if that included intensive coverage of other sports, including a comprehensive form guide and expert tips for punters? What if they then proposed, à la Foxtel pick-and-mix bundles, that for another ten bucks a month, I could choose between political news and commentary, business news, or arts coverage and restaurant reviews from across the stable, including foreign publications? What if I could bundle it all with a Foxtel subscription? What if I could also get a range of mobile content? If it were offered on these terms, surely I wouldn't be the only person in Australia who was tempted. Again, it's worth noting that News could leverage existing advantages for a form of content for which there is no free equivalent elsewhere.
If I were to sign up, knowing what they know about me, they would be able to target ads far more effectively than they can at random web users. Perhaps advertisers would be prepared to pay more for online advertising directed at consumers with some known preferences and a demographic shape who are actually prepared to stump up for news. Maybe.
They're just two examples of how I imagine niche news content could work, and if people are prepared to pay for them, it's also possible that if you offer slightly less desirable content at a marginal cost they'll take it. Essentially, what I'm proposing is that it's possible that the "post-broadcast" pay TV model could be applied to news. If anyone has the array of content and the market power to make it work, it's News Corp. They know as well as anyone that in contemporary media, the tide is running in the direction of multi-channeling, niche audiences and content that's made for (and increasingly by) reasonably discrete fan communities. In this environment, as some have pointed out, political news is just another niche, and perhaps not the biggest one. The newspaper, perhaps, is too inefficient and poorly targeted a content bundle. It may be that you can sell news to people who aren't political junkies by attaching it to other things but you may need to play to their enthusiasms first.
Some commentators on News's proposals seem blinkered by beliefs about what the internet ought to be like. As a few writers have remarked, there is an orthodoxy that holds that the internet is a necessarily democratising technology, or a privileged environment of freedom. Walls may violate that orthodoxy but it doesn't mean that they won't work.
Among critics of the News paywall notion there are also strong beliefs about how news ought to be made and delivered, and occasionally a strong antipathy to News Corp. But again, that doesn't mean they can't do it. I might even share some of these beliefs, but not to the extent that I'd write the paywall proposal off before seeing how it's presented, what the model is, and the extent to which they'll allow people to customise their news diet.
This whole issue becomes clearer when you stop thinking about News's objective as the creation of a bunch of paywalled newspapers but rather as a proposal to move to a more sophisticated pay-per-view regime for online content. I think News have enough unique material, corporate experience, and celebrity "talent" to possibly pull something off. The first question is whether they can afford the time and money needed to make a niche-driven news business model work. The second is that, if they do, what will happen to existing beliefs about the nature of internet content?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Jason, I think you may be right in terms of the model that News Ltd might use but that model is untested in this environment. If News goes it alone and doesn’t get any Government intervention in terms of the BBC, ABC etc then its model is going to be severely tested. As you say it might work, Foxtel works and pay-tv works elsewhere, once people decide that something is worth paying for which is really all that matters to News.
As I do not , have not and probably never will read or otherwise imbibe ANY News Corp. garbage, in Australia or elsewhere, whether sport (spit!) or news( you are joking?!) or rabid Right Wing commentary (Oh My Gawd!) whether they start charging for it only concerns me if, say, Fairfax in Australia go the same route.
Not that Fairfax is much better, but it is a little, and what other choices are there for Australian daily news? Especially in Queensland. If Fairfax follows News Corp. then we will need a new independent news source in Australia…BADLY! We need one now, actually.
Aside from that, I used to be a subscriber to New Matilda, before it decided to open up to all and sundry, relying on income from advertising, something I never did and never will agree with. With advertising comes ‘deals’ and self-censorship…and pressure to censor the content to satisfy the advertisers. Something which has always been a major problem with all News sources with advertising content or rich backers.
If independent News sources overseas, such as al Jazeera, go ‘pay as you go’ then I will have perhaps to think again. I may have to go completely ‘akaba’ in relation to daily news except for what I can get from the ABC and SBS, and this is getting less reliable every day!
Hmmm! May we live in interesting times!!!
It’s a question of broadcast and narrowcast.
If News Corp do as you say they create narrow revenue streams that almost certainly wouldn’t pay for the new content they would be forced to create.
News Corp specialise in down-market and although there are advantages in this, down-market doesn’t have much cash.
Although they could probably create new content with added value (as in sports coverage), most of what they currently do wouldn’t bear new added content. Bolt doesn’t get any better in bulk, and the word suits him better than any other media.
Iain Hall
The detail that all of your commentary seems to have missed is that the sort of model that Murdoch is looking at will see users charged micro amounts for each page or item that they view. Or al least that is how I heard it discussed on the ABC. this is a model quite unlike any exiting paid content entity. Now if we view the desire to make money the existing content with this in mind it is far easier to imagine that members of the SMS generation being relativity amenable to be billed on a pay per page basis, rather than being billed a subscription fee to access the content of a particular instrument. Thus you could imagine a scheme where a user signs up to pay just a few cents per page veiw.
Personally I don’t think that the cats can be herded well enough to make any payment for what is now free viable but don’t let blinkered thinking make your believe that the model for making News limited’s online existence pay may be something entirely different to any of the Pay TV models you are drawing on here.
dazza,
If you have never read any thing in the News Limited press how do you know that the Fairfax press is better?
News Limited has a large number of journalists working for it who used to work for Fairfax, just as Fairfax has a large number of ex-News Limited journalists.
There is some good in both organizations. It is just that it is hard to find some days.
Sure the sports-addicted are prepared to pay, as long as the payment method is easy enough.
If micropayment per view is what’s required, why can’t advertising drive it?
Signing up to access a newspage (Just did that here on NM) could include enough information on "interests" to tailor the ads better.
I suppose my query is this:
how many hits/clicks/micropaying adverts could a blogger get from those not wanting to pay for, say, the Wall Street Journal, by having a subscription themselves, digesting and relaying the information (with attribution and a link, of course) in their own site?
A popular enough blog could do that easy, and they will.
Personally, I now no longer go to certain news sites because of the "subscribe to read the rest of this article" thing.
Analysis is not the exclusive realm of professional journos, as evidenced by this webpage among others.
True "scoops" dont stay fresh long, generally the news gets picked up by other outlets very quickly, and by going to these secondary sources the basic information is freely available to the reader.
It’s no surprise certain Media Owners have little love lost for publicly-funded media… Public Media delivers its product because of its mandate to inform.
Private Media delivers because they make $$ from it.
And a viewer changing to SBS news from ACA therefore costs them money.
If both sides attempt to do the same job (news) there has to be a differentiation.
Thus far, it seems Public Media deals with Serious Stuff (and allegations of undue influence by Government) and Private Media deals with Entertaining Stuff (and allegations of undue influence by media owners and advertisers).
The serious stuff I think we should have a right to find out, the entertaining stuff can be paid for if we like it enough (still finding it hard to believe anyone would pay for Foxtel, but obviously enough do for it to still be in business)
Maybe when Private-sector journalism unearths something genuinely significant and newsworthy, they could get a bit of a kickback from the ABC’s coffers for doing their job for them?
Well thought out article, thank you.
Paywalling Bolt? What an excellent idea.
I have read Iain Hall’s comment three times and I still don’t know what he’s trying to say.
Sorry, I incorrectly formatted my comment by failing to quote my own name at the start. I’ll resubmit it:
______
Scott Bridges
I have read Iain Hall’s comment three times and I still don’t know what he’s trying to say.
lindsayfoyle, you do not have to actually read, listen to or watch Murdoch New output to get the gist. It is a subject of much discussion elsewhere.
I do read the Fairfax Press on-line daily at present, but I do not expect anything like the best or the brightest journalism from them. You have to remember that they are now mostly owned by a Hedge Fund, and the Chairman is still, I think, an ex-Liberal fund raiser and general can-do Liberal supporter, Ron Walker. So they very much do practice censorship, and give biased reporting.
I understand from what I hear, read or see from various non-Murdoch sources that Murdoch media is even more so inclined.
Another blog on this NM is relevant. ‘Journalists’ from Murdoch and Fairfax regularly cross to Government (mostly Lib/Nat but sometimes Labor), employ as PR hacks, and to my beliefs, this is akin to prostitution, in the real sense of the word. Whoever pays the piper, plays the tune.
Good! What is good? Less bland? Less offensive? Less commercialized?
Like beauty, something always in the eye, ear or nose of the beholder.
But just as an example, I can hear about five different versions of truth on just about any matter from the ABC on any morning, listening to Radio National or Local ABC Radio. Damned frustrating.
What has happened to real journalism? Or just plain checking of ‘facts’. before opening mouth.
Too true, dazza. Checking the facts is part of being a journalist. Checking what is in the Murdoch press before criticizing is part of what I would call, "Checking the facts."
lindsayfoyle, I am NOT a journalist. I merely state personal opinions, as I am sure you do. Or are you a Murdoch ‘journalist’? You nitpick! End of conversation!
Sorry if I offended you dazza. I’m not a Murdoch journalist, but I have been. I’ve also worked for Packer, Fairfax, IPC and other places. I’ve worked with dills and starts in all of those organizations. None are perfect, however I’ve never been told to adopt a political view by anyone running any publication.