That's what Morning Call publisher Tim Kennedy hinted at during a Northampton County Community College forum about the newspaper industry today.
In response to a question about online content, Kennedy noted, "We do not currently charge for online access." He later repeated himself, stressing the word "currently," noting it would make sense to provide the content for free while the paper feels its way around the Internet.
18 comments:
The end of the Mcall as we know it is near...
They should be giving away the paper now to anyone who wants it, more readers = more advertisers (not that anybody is even looking at the ad's)
I'll not pay a dime. I read it online almost every day. I'll forget I missed it in about twelve seconds.
Some perspective from a newspaper guy:
Virtually every newspaper plans eventually to charge for online content. So Kennedy's remarks are not surprising, unless he's suggesting it will happen soon.
People often wonder why newspapers give their content away for free online. It's because they're trying to build readership to draw advertisers, and charging readers would greatly stymie that.
Imagine if either the Morning Call or Express-Times began to charge for online content today and one didn't. The one that charged would immediately lose the majority of its readers to the other, advertisers would run the same way and the Web site wouldn't make any money.
The key is to build readership and Web site quality to a point that when you can charge and still have a significant readership that draws advertisers. You have to make it a a product good enough that a large number of people will pay for it rather than take myriad free alternatives elsewhere on the Web.
That threshold is high, of course, and the vast majority of newspapers aren't there yet.
But once some of the powerhouse papers -- NY Times, Washington Post, etc. -- charge successfully over a reasonable amount of time, you'll see other papers jump in in groups. The reduction in free alternatives will only make other papers more likely to charge, and the snowball will be rolling.
So, yes, the Morning Call and every newspaper plans to charge for online content. They just can't right now.
Some perspective from a newspaper guy:
Virtually every newspaper plans eventually to charge for online content. So Kennedy's remarks are not surprising, unless he's suggesting it will happen soon.
People often wonder why newspapers give their content away for free online. It's because they're trying to build readership to draw advertisers, and charging readers would greatly stymie that.
Imagine if either the Morning Call or Express-Times began to charge for online content today and one didn't. The one that charged would immediately lose the majority of its readers to the other, advertisers would run the same way and the Web site wouldn't make any money.
The key is to build readership and Web site quality to a point that when you can charge and still have a significant readership that draws advertisers. You have to make it a a product good enough that a large number of people will pay for it rather than take myriad free alternatives elsewhere on the Web.
That threshold is high, of course, and the vast majority of newspapers aren't there yet.
But once some of the powerhouse papers -- NY Times, Washington Post, etc. -- charge successfully over a reasonable amount of time, you'll see other papers jump in in groups. The reduction in free alternatives will only make other papers more likely to charge, and the snowball will be rolling.
So, yes, the Morning Call and every newspaper plans to charge for online content. They just can't right now.
Wow, sorry for the triple post. Don't know what happened there.
you should be charged
Bernie, just think of the increased readership you and other bloggers would get if the MC started charging...
Like I am going to PAY THEM for the 'privilidge' of reading left-wing biased article after article beating the snot out of Nazi Conservatives.
Okay!
Actually, I will start buying stock in blogs (even O'Hare's) immediately.
Douglas,
Circulation is down, readership is down, advertising dollars are down and staff levels at all media levels is down.
The reason they are down is because the quality of reporting (or should I say lack of) is down so why buy a paper?
Some areas of online media may be able to charge a fee, business section possibly but then the only people buying would be the businesses themselves, who else would care?
I don't have the answer either but any attempt from a local news source to charge a fee for online viewing would further alienate the readership.
Nobody shed tears for the town crier when print became widely available. We're on to the next thing. RIP, newspapers.
I even stopped reading online when they changed the format a year or so back. And it seems like the national coverage has gotten worse online.
Please charge - it will accelerate the availability of another option.
From another thread here a couple of days ago, thought it a better fit here:
The advertising revenue generated by newspaper websites is a very low percentage of overall revenues, and has declined, in dollars, nationally for two consecutive years following annual gains 2004-2007. Web ads are priced at roughly 10% of print ads and are usually throw-ins for buying space in the print product. The Pew Center just put out a report showing 79% of visitors to news organization websites never click through on ads, not a good sign when you'll need those advertisers to pay even more.
Newspaper web sites are really parasitic, surviving on the editorial and financial resources of the host (print)infrastructure.
General interest newspapers will never get the "Digital" generation to pay for subscriptions, those folks are conditioned to get the product for free. Newsday, on Long Island, tried it and got a whopping 35 customers to pay in the first three months of promoting it. The NYT tried before and failed, they'll try again in 2011.
Without their dead tree benefactors, these websites will never be able to maintain the content creation that gives them what value they have now.
Anonymous,
Good points, but I'd like to dispute some of them.
Yes, circulation, readership and revenue are down, and in turn so are the resources that can be devoted to news gathering.
But the reason to buy a paper is because it's still got perhaps the most and the most reliable information around. That sounds like a sales pitch, but you'd be hard pressed to name any entity in this community besides the library that has better info than the newspapers.
A study that I wish I could name right now recently showed that 75 percent of news stories, whether you consume them through TV, radio, Internet or whatever, ultimately come from a print journalist. The reason to read a newspaper is because it's got facts on what people are talking about.
Furthermore, I'll acknowledge that the notion that news reporting has declined is in part true but I think it is also in part a myth. You can point to the disproportionate focus on entertainment, which won't be disputed. But I'm not sure what, if anything, newspapers are missing these days that they used to report on. Watergates don't happen all the time.
I entirely agree with your last point that "any attempt from a local news source to charge a fee for online viewing would further alienate the readership." That's why newspapers aren't charging right now. Any newspaper Web site that charged an entry fee would just lose readers and advertisers to free news sources.
I have heard that in the near future a new Lehigh Valley local news blog will be starting. Unlike Ohares opinionated fluff piece, this will be dedicated to real stories and not exist to only praise some and attack others.
I think that is the wave of the future. Certainly fluff blogs like Ohares are not going anywhere but real honest news will eventually be the format.
I don't have the money to blowed on an online paper.
Anyone notice how the Morning Call no longer covers real local news in the communities? There use to be time that you could read, on a daily basis, what was going on in Catty, Bethlehem, Whitehall and other places. Today, the MC basically regurgitates AP news. The MC did lay off most of its reporting staff. To find any assemblence of a traditional local paper, the Express Times is it. Concerning paying for an online subscription to the MC... that is laughable. All state and national news can be found on other outlets.
The MC's local coverage used to be outstanding. Toward the end of their run with local coverage, even after they'd cut to ribs and dick, they'd still regularly scoop The Express-Times on Easton news happening a half block from Joe Owens' desk. The Express is a weak replacement. But until they also throw their staff overboard (things aren't great there, either), they're all that's left. Webcasts of public meetings are becoming more necessary.
As long as hacks like Owens and Deegan are around the Express will be second to the Call. Considering the Call sucks, that is pretty bad.
Post a Comment