Would You Pay To Click This Link?
- Posted by: Morgan Clendaniel
- on February 6, 2009 at 3:45 pm
That’s what The New York Times wants to know. And, presumably, everyone else making content on the internet.
Walter Issacson, a venerable godfather of internet content, just wrote a long think piece in Time about how we’ve made a mistake in our attitudes that information needs to be free. Because you can shout that to the rooftops all you want, but information also needs to be paid for. Newspaper articles don’t just write themselves. I’ve been trying, unsuccessfully, to find some sort of accounting of how many links on the internet link back to the Times, or, more generally, to any major newspaper or news service. It must be an incredibly large percent, if not a majority.
But what we ingrates on the internet don’t understand is that—with your current attitude—soon we wont have any links to click on. Everything will just be pictures of cute cats or YouTube videos of young girls talking about themselves. And that will probably be fine for a while, but then you might want to know something about the stimulus bill, or your corrupt senator who might be having sex with 13-year-olds, or read a movie review by someone who can write in complete sentences. And then we’ll feel really sad, because we will have destroyed the very thing we want.
So, in the next year, as things get really bad for newspapers everywhere, we will have to make a choice. Are we willing to pay for this service? Because, the big secret that no one wants to think about is that internet advertising is not going to be the savior of information and reporting, because it simply does not pay enough money. Getting the news we want (and clearly crave, since it forms the backbone of the internet) costs a lot of money. It’s probably less than The New York Times thinks, but it’s much more than banner ads can possibly support—and much more than we lay people can probably understand.
The problem began when the internet was very young. Somehow, people became convinced that things on the internet had to be, by default, free. And now it’s a mantra that we all seem swear by. If the Times and many other newspapers had decided, at the beginning, to not be free, then things on the internet would not be free, and that would be the way things were. They were inventing the very rules that would define a new world that they did not understand, and they invented them badly, and now they are struggling to operate in a world stacked against them. They should not be punished for this by being forced out of business.
This attitude, that we should have things for free for the simple reason that they are free is in many ways similar to the collective financial thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. “I will take this extra line of credit because it is there, regardless of the consequences,” or “I will buy this home I cannot pay for, regardless of the consequences.” People who make things we enjoy consuming need to get paid. And we shouldn’t try to shirk that responsibility. We should pay them to continue to make the things we love. It’s pretty simple.
So, I’m calling upon everyone to change our attitudes. Subscribe to magazines. Buy songs on iTunes (even better, go buy albums). When a website you like asks for money, give them some. And when, in the next year, a newspaper does something drastic like asking you to pay five cents to read a story, just do it. If you have your doubts, try this experiment: Pick up a copy of The New York Times when you can. It costs $1.50. Think of every New York Times story you’ve been directed to via link over the last week. Divide $1.50 by that number. Was it worth it?
DISCUSSION: 16 Comments
This reminds me of the early days of radio (or was it TV?), when the industry decided it would charge for hardware, and make the broadcasts free. So, until the advent of cable TV and satellite radio, this was actually the model we were much more accustomed to as consumers (and in fact, broadcast TV—and radio—are still huge, and one of the big benefits of switching from analog to digital TV will be how well people receive signals, over the air, for only the cost of a TV and rabbit ears). And while newspapers are expensive physical objects to make, the internet, as a medium, is much more analogous to broadcast than to print. All of which is to say, I don’t blame consumer for feeling that things on the internet should be free, I think we’ve been conditioned to think that way for the past five decades, if not longer. But I agree, it boggles my mind to think of how much value I get for the $1.50 I occasionally spend on a print edition of the Times. Equally baffling: how have they ever been able to make money with people paying only a $1.50? You can’t buy a cup of coffee for that little.
You make good points, Zach. I think information should be free, but unfortunately reality doesn’t agree. I am subscribed to an online newspaper, you do get some extras from sites that do let you do that, but it’s probably not enough to convince most people that should pay, and U suspect not enough by itself to keep newspapers afloat. One reason I don’t buy a physical paper is I think paper is a huge waste of resources. I hope someone figures out a model that lets newspapers stay in business in the virtual world as more and more peopel abandon the paper format.
Errors and corrections: U -> I, peopel -> people… Didn’t catch these until after hitting “Submit,” and there is no edit feature. “I Am” regrets the errors.
First, I’d like to say that I actually subscribe and pay for Good Magazine. But I do understand why people expect to read the New York Times for free, I am one of those people, and I get why institutions like the NYTimes offer their content for free — because there’s always another place like the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journalst, etc. Therefore, borrowing from Zach’s observation that the internet is much like broadcast, why not offer a similarly analogous cable-like subscription service for a conglomerate of newspapers and magazines? You pay a montly subscription fee and have access to dozens, or hundreds, of websites.
First, I’d like to say that I actually subscribe and pay for Good Magazine. But I do understand why people expect to read the New York Times for free, I am one of those people, and I get why institutions like the NYTimes offer their content for free — because there’s always another place like the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journalst, etc. Therefore, borrowing from Zach’s observation that the internet is much like broadcast, why not offer a similarly analogous cable-like subscription service for a conglomerate of newspapers and magazines? You pay a montly subscription fee and have access to dozens, or hundreds, of websites. (sorry, forgot to sign in before)
i think there will be a dichotomy between ‘premium’ content, and all the rest. The vast majority of content will be ad-supported, just as the vast majority of TV programming is ad-supported. Premium content (e.g. niche-interest content, international news reporting etc.) will require some user-payment, but I don’t agree that people should run guilt-ridden to their local newsstand and buy a newspaper, or buy a physical CD. Both of those distribution mechanisms are outdated, over-priced, and inefficient. With all of the middlemen in the way, artists/ writers receive much less than their fair share, massive amounts of energy is wasted, and consumers just don’t want it any more. Print will survive, but probably not (many) daily newspapers. I’m pretty sure an itunes-like system will emerge for premium text content to replace the old distribution mechanisms, and the Kindle is a huge leap towards that. The key will be ease of use on a par with iTunes, where hardware & software work seamlessly.
Why wouldn’t internet advertising pay for online news if the adbuyers in the physical newspaper comes along in the shift?And, I thought newspapers didn’t make any money on sellling copies, on the contrary, they lost more money the more copies they sold. So not having to ship out physical goods must be a huge advantage.
The answer to your question, alp, is contained in the following quote:
“Henry Luce, a co-founder of TIME, disdained the notion of giveaway
publications that relied solely on ad revenue. He called that formula
“morally abhorrent” and also “economically self-defeating.” That was
because he believed that good journalism required that a publication’s
primary duty be to its readers, not to its advertisers. In an
advertising-only revenue model, the incentive is perverse. It is also
self-defeating, because eventually you will weaken your bond with your
readers if you do not feel directly dependent on them for your revenue.”
I think it’s an incredibly valid point, and to me the most interesting part of the Time article.
And Sebastian: I’m generally a Kindle hater, but mostly because it’s so ugly. Functionally, it does represent a huge step forward, I agree: the persistent over-the-air network connection is mind-blowingly advanced, and a real signal I think to how news and information will be delivered to us in the future. But for the love of all thing holy, can’t it use technology like this?
Further reading on iTunes for news content, compliments of David Carr.
Part of the problem seems to be the delivery of online advertising.
It wouldn’t be too difficult to serve regional ads on national websites. Use a geographic approximation of a user’s IP address, and deliver them local businesses’ ads.
Those local businesses would pay a fraction of the cost of a national ad on the same site, and their message would be delivered to the same people who have abandoned their local paper in favor of online news.
I’d be much more likely to click on an online ad if it was for a restaurant, auto body shop, dry cleaner or cafe that I knew was within 10 miles of my house, instead of for giant corporations selling me insurance or scam artists telling me to take an IQ Quiz.
With the death of newspapers, small local businesses are at risk of being further ignored in favor of online retailers and big-box stores. Targeted regional online advertising might help neighbors buy stuff from their neighbors — which is kinda how everything is supposed to work, right?
Zach: the bulk of their revenue comes from advertising. It’s why London is infested with freesheet newspapers – somewhere along the line, media became less about communicating information to people and more about putting products in front of their eyes. It’s always combined the two, but these newspapers are horrible anthologies of AP stories and the same photographs, with a little bit of cod ‘op-ed’ stuff thrown in. They thrive on the fact that say one in five unimaginative commuters will take whatever is put in their hand, so they have more “readers” than respected broadsheets like the Guardian. Advertisers love this, though there are signs this might change soon. I’ve been talking about Morgan’s idea for a while – that there is so much on the internet that I find useful that I would pay for. But some of (last.fm, for example) I don’t, right now. I would pay for Twitter if I could. Flickr, I do. Their model works very well. If my favourite websites started to go under, I would definitely put something in. But until it comes to the crunch, I’m still in the mindset of internet=free. There needs to be a shift, which might come when these sites start to get into problems. I read a great article (forgot where, dang) about a new business model for Facebook – instead of conceptualising itself as a rival to Google, it should focus on what it does well, i.e. connecting people in an online social space. Would most people pay five dollars a year to use Facebook? Probably. And they’d have a decent revenue stream, could still use adverts if they wanted, and they’d be a modestly successful online business.The potential of the internet makes people want to do everything, and people expect it for free, because for so long it has been. But the (sustainable) future of internet use seems to me to be in specialist services charging small amounts.
zach – re this idea: “good journalism required that a publication’s
primary duty be to its readers, not to its advertisers.” … I think regardless of the primary revenue source (advertising or user payments), a publication will always live or die on whether it satisfies readers, and therefore whether it has an audience. Maybe you could argue free media is populist/ low quality, but I think that can happen regardless of user payments (see Murdoch papers), and is more of an editorial decision. Also, if a publication today derives 60% of its revenues from advertisers, does it treat those advertisers much differently if/when 100% of revenues come from advertisers? re quality of the Kindle… the (pretty crappy) ipod came out in 2001; we have to hope the next few years sees an ipod-to-iphone type evolution path for the Kindle
Sebastian, ask and you shall receive: new kindle!
Walter Issacson on the daily show:http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=217702
I would sell it this way;*Give yesterday news for free*Today’s news, for a year/month/weekly suscription modelIt would be complicated, if not imposible, because it would end up copypasted/screen captured/torrented et caetera.On the other hand, if your information is SO good that people are pirating it, others will just pay to avoid the hassle
“A week of The Washington Post weighs about eight pounds and costs $1.81
for new subscribers, home-delivered. With newsprint (that’s the paper,
not the ink) costing around $750 a metric ton, or 34 cents a pound,
Post subscribers are getting almost a dollar’s worth of paper free
every week — not to mention the ink, the delivery, etc.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/opinion/10kinsley.html‘help out your favorite paper – unsubscribe!’
I believe it is possible for the high revenues once created by newspapers to shift to online subscriptions [for news], restructuring the online press medium. The television and online-press will be our news source.