Ask people if newspapers should charge for online content, and here’s just some of what you’ll hear:
“It’s coming whether we like it or not.” (In fact, here’s an article that predicts it will be here in less than a year.)
“No, that information is free now and should remain so. They can make money on advertising instead.”
“Newspapers should have been charging for it all along–not sure why we’re getting it online for free.”
“If they do start charging, there is a huge risk of a potential backlash resulting in even steeper circulation loss. It could be the final straw that sinks newspapers.”
“I don’t like when the Alstin team write serious blogs. I want to hear more about Tony’s ice tea addiction, Annette’s winery finds and Christy’s running trails.
Okay, no one really says that last one. Still, this issue is going to be talked about a lot in the next year, and you’ll be a much bigger hit at parties if you have an informed opinion.
So, should newspapers charge for online content? Of course they should.
Let’s put aside for now some of the thornier legal issues and the fact that newspapers are in desperate need for more revenue to survive (we’ll get to both those issues later).
For me, the free vs. not free argument comes down to a simple question: Is there true value in the news and other content newspapers publish, both in print and online?
I say yes, absolutely, and for over 200 hundred years most people have agreed with me, recognized that value and paid for it.
Of course, that leads directly to one of the newspaper’s biggest problems–and some would say one of their own creation–for the last 15 years newspapers have willingly given away nearly all online content for free. Some say that newspapers should be able to sustain online revenue with advertising (just as many free print newspapers like Metro, Pennysavers and other community newspapers have for years). However, it seems that will not be enough for most newspapers to survive–so I think we may need to pay for the valuable content we get, even if we were used to getting it for free. Not surprisingly, many disagree.
Still, when I think of my cell phone bill (connect fees anyone?) cable bill (monthly rental fee of the digital box?), electric bill, and so many other examples in our daily life where we get charged for every little thing, I find it hard to believe that something as important as responsible, relevant journalism isn’t worth paying for. It’s ironic that we live in an information age, but we don’t want to pay for some of the highest quality information.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should all start shelling out $30 a week per newspaper for online content. I imagine we might start seeing some models where we pay $5 a month for a newspaper’s exclusive online content–and perhaps they throw in the Sunday paper delivered to your home. Even if a newspaper loses 25% of its circulation in the transition, that’s still a minimum of hundreds of thousands a dollars a month in added revenue for most papers.
Plus, if newspapers start charging for content there will be a more definite line drawn between “real” journalism and what sometimes passes for journalism on the Internet–something I would argue is sorely needed.
Finally, and I know this sounds petty, I believe there is a fairness issue at stake. For example, I pay my $5 every Sunday for the New York Times. However, my neighbor Joe can read nearly all the same content for free. Either Joe shouldn’t get the information for free or I am a dope and should start reading it for free online as well, which would mean further loss in revenue for the newspaper. I think now is the time for newspapers to make that decision, even if it means possibly losing Joe as a reader. Either way, Joe should definitely stop the hammering he does in his garage after midnight.
I realize this is a bird’s-eye view of the issue, and there are many snafus that need to be worked out if newspapers do charge for content. The first is somehow protecting that content from appearing elsewhere on the web. Another big issue is “news” itself and the public interest it serves. As Peter Scheer said in his blog for Huffington Post:
“Suppose the New York Times moves all its content behind password protection and initiates a monthly subscription plan. Does the Times, which owns the copyrights and whose editors and reporters created the articles, have the right to stop these unauthorized uses, which we’ll assume are undercutting its effort to charge for its content? The answer depends on the application of “fair use,” a doctrine of copyright law that basically blesses (what otherwise would be infringing) uses of a copyrighted work when the ises are both insubstantial and deemed to be in the public interest.”
There’s so much more to come on this issue from both sides. We want to hear what you think so please weigh in with your comments below!
