How to make people pay for media

We all consume media on a daily basis.  We love the stuff but we are paying less and less for it as our parents die and we all get our content online.  And as we all know, news online is almost all FREE.  Free isn’t a business model that really works for media.  Good journalism is expensive and tough to support through online advertising.  Rupert Murdoch has responded aggressively to this by putting a charge on many sites such as WSJ.com.  This hasn’t worked too well in part because you can still get to the content through a Google search for free.  He’s threatening to change all that though for the simple reason that they are struggling to make the economics work even with an online subscription model in place.

I have a suggestion for Mr Murdoch and other media moguls.  In the same way that we pay a cable fee in this country and even a TV license in the UK, why not charge a monthly media fee that would enable you to access all the media without having multiple subscriptions.  You’d need an aggregator such as Apple’s iTunes to get in to the mix but I’m pretty convinced that in the same way as people will pay $10 a month for satellite radio, they’d pay $10 a month to access the top 100 publications in the US.  Now there’d be a challenge figuring out which magazine or newspaper got what out of that $10 each month but I’m pretty sure it could be worked out.  It would also enable one player to take over the challenge of managing the online advertising for a host of publications, instead of having a fragmented model as they do today.   It would also mean as a user that you would only need one login.  I’d almost pay $10 a month just for that as I keep forgetting what username and password I have for various online titles.

Advertisements

Why News Corp has made a mistake

murdo_1457305cNews Corp’s decision to start charging for its web content is in my opinion a mistake.  A huge, can’t believe they really have done this, mistake.  Now I fully appreciate that media content companies are struggling to find a meaningful source of revenue in an online world BUT the move to charge readers in this way is, in my view, a mistake.  The traditional print media world is so different form the online world that applying the same model is flawed.  When you subscribe to a newspaper or magazine you make a lasting commitment for sure.  But your choices are limited.  If you want to get your printed news from a different source one morning you can but it takes effort.  You have to physically go and get it.  The same decision online is a matter of clicks.  Furthermore, news is essentially now free and people don’t want to pay for it.  They can get the basic news from thousands of sources for free so why pay one to deliver it?  What they may pay for is a unique and valued perspective.  BUT that need will change with the content they are viewing. Again, paying for a single day’s perspective in three month cycles or longer isn’t attractive to most people.    Last, thanks to blogs people are becoming more attached to people who create perspective than they are to publications.  Signing up to subscribe to a publication that is online seems to be like renting all the magician’s equipment for your kids birthday party and then finding out that the magician has gone to work elsewhere.

I don’t envy the challenge the media faces here.  It isn’t easy to see a great solution to the revenue challenge other than advertising revenue.  That said the ad revenue model should be something that can be made to work.  Online publications ought to be far more cost effective to produce and thus require less ad revenue to support.  Online publications are also more able to track how users really use their sites by the hour, so they can improve their product far more efficiently.  Indeed when you look at all the advantages online media offers it seems even more sad that News Corp simply defaulted to the old way of charging for media consumption.


Murdoch plans to make online readers pay


On his quarterly call with analysts, News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch said he intends to start charging people for access to their online content. He said the Wall Street Journal has proved it can be done. I wonder if he’s right. Right now you can access most of the WSJ for free. As an iPhone user I can access a good deal of WSJ content using the WSJ app on the iPhone. Also if you Google any WSJ news headline on your PC you can often see the entire article without a subscription.

Aside from the fact that the WSJ is free to many people, I also wonder what happens when he tries to take his publications behind a subscription wall. I suspect many of his readers will opt for a rival publication that doesn’t charge or for well written blogs. I also struggle to see the typical Sun reader paying a subscription. I know the news media business is struggling to find a profitable business model right now and that the subscrioptn model is an obvious place to look. I just don’t see it working for mainstream consumer publications. I can see people paying a blanket subscription in the same way they might do for cabel TV or satellite radio but for that thye need a broad range of titles to be the equivalent of channels on these properties. Murdoch is no fool and has made some shrewd moves in the media business. Launching his own media channel on the web that you can subscribe to but which contains news media from both his print AND broadcast properties. Now that I can see working if the price is right.


Has MySpace died and will the WSJ follow?

Pre Murdoch I heard about MySpace every week if not day in one way or another. Since Murdoch bought it, the military has banned its use by soldiers and Facebook has arrived as the latest ‘thing’ in social media. This makes we wonder about a couple of things:

1) Are social media sites a bit like search engines were back in the old days – destined to be superseded until somebody invents the Google equivalent?

2) Will Murdoch’s acquisition of the WSJ be a good thing? The apparent disappearance of MySpace is of course a PR problem. MySpace is still huge and getting bigger by all counts. It simply doesn’t get the buzz that Facebook currently enjoys. While I’d argue that Murdoch still doesn’t seem to know what do to with MySpace, it would be hard to argue that he’ll have the same challenge with the WSJ. He understands the newspaper business and will presumably leave the news side of the publication well alone. He may well change the right wing tone of the editorials but even that is debatable. He does have a challenge on his hands though. He has bought a publication, that like most other newspapers, is losing readers on a daily basis. Sure, they are acquiring some online readers but the overall picture isn’t a good one. At a certain level he will be forced to make some changes at some point, if only to make sure he can continue to generate reasonable returns. I guess the question is how long will he wait before he acts and how will he go about it?