You’ve never paid for news, you never will

Question Time Live: 18/03/2010

by Tory Maguire

110
What voters really think of Tony Abbott’s religion

by Nic Christensen and Tina Tek

210
Why stop at binning welcome to country and prayers

by Chris Deal

310
Twin revolutions to help troubled suburbs

by Nick Champion

410
Ignore water, ignore women

by Juliet Willetts

510
Let the aircraft noise roar

by Paul Colgan

610
Don’t bring your kids and other supermarket rules

by Lucy Kippist

710
Woman who wants to be world’s fattest reveals more

by Daniela Elser

810
SA’s whispering campaign has Adelaide by the balls

by Tory Shepherd

910
Punch on: Open thread 18/03/10

by Lucy Kippist

1010

27 Nov 05:45am

Filed under: Internet, Journalism, Media, Newspapers, Paid Content

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know we all want to change the world ...
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know, we’re doing what we can ...

Pic: supplied.

You read news. So you know there’s a revolution going in the news industry, with much untargeted crossfire, rattling of virtual sabres and foaming at the mouth about paid content.

Rude words have been said. Like “parasite”. And “money”.

I’ve been revolting for years, of course, having been part of the first decade or so of the war - the move by newspapers to digital publishing.

Rude words were said during that long engagement too. Like “cannibalising”. And “You rat bastard”.

There was a feeling among some of my colleagues, at times, that perhaps I should pull my head in and stop merrily giving away our excellent content for free on couriermail.com.au.

Nonetheless, we and other newspapers have built great and growing web audiences.

Unfortunately, the maths just refuses to add up properly, so news firms are, inevitably, looking for ways to make it pay so they can continue to pay me. I am in favour of this, because I am fond of eating.

Fans of the “information wants to be free” side of Stewart Brand’s information paradox maintain that will end us.

Conventional wisdom among webizens (including most of my lovely Twitter stalkers - hi guys) says putting up pay walls on our news sites will kill 95% of our traffic.

News Corp and other research has suggested other, less dramatic figures. There’s no clear picture.

But that is not the point of the paid content debate. The point is that it is not about paid content.

Listen carefully: Newspaper organisations have never charged for content. Ever. In any medium.

We have charged advertisers for access to readers, in a daily miracle whereby we put their ads in front of you every morning, and you picked up those ads because we managed, amazingly, to put yesterday’s news in amongst them. (Yes, yesterday’s news. Wow. This was truly an extraordinary achievement when I started in newspapers, back in the Dark Ages. Don’t get me started.)

And we have charged readers a token amount to subsidise the cost of getting that content to them, the way our milko (yes, we still have a milko, bless him) charges us a bit extra for delivering his content.

We also pay for the milk, but news readers have paid and continue to pay only for the vehicle, not the content. The paper, not the news.

The cost of creating news content has not reduced. Far from it. But the cost of delivery of news online is wee indeed compared to the cost of the old daily miracle. So the maths has to change.

The web is all about information that is free, as in unfettered, and free as in free of charge - except for the cost of your monthly connection.

Oh, and the shiny desktop or laptop or sweet little iPhone or other beloved/behated gadget you are using to read this.

And perhaps a hefty slug for mobile megabytes. And a bit for electricity. OK, not really free. And you’re probably reading this at work, so your poor boss is paying for your time as well. Stop that.

But you (or your bosses) are paying for the delivery, not the clever words and pretty pictures. The vehicle, not the content.

The caricature of me on this page (a remarkable likeness, though I do not smoke cigars and I do not have a tail) was created by First Dog on the Moon, cartoonist for paid news site Crikey.

I didn’t pay him for it. (Should I have, Dog?)

A while back he spent considerable personal time generously giving away caricatures to Twitter followers to use as avatars.

Now First Dog’s work usually resides behind a paywall - although no doubt even then it is picked up and shared around on the web by fans.

But Crikey’s subscribers pay real dollars for the regular, easy delivery of their daily dogonthemoon (and other cranky Crikey stuff) to their virtual doorstep, without having to search around or rely on the kindness of strangers. The vehicle, not the content.

The revolution will continue, and there will be winners and there will be losers, and more rude words will be said.

The mathematics of who pays for what will change - but it will almost certainly be about the delivery rather than the goods.

News will continue to be free (unfettered) and free (relatively free of charge). And news organisations will survive - perhaps slimmer and more agile, but they’ll still be here, hopefully comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. And paying me.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- Eric says:
  
  06:22am | 27/11/09
  
  “Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” - That’s not news, it’s political activism.
  
  Crikey isn’t news either, it’s a left-wing propaganda organ.
  
  Certainly, True Believers are willing to pay for political activism in the guise of “news” - but most people are not True Believers.
  
  Reply
- peddler says:
  
  07:09am | 27/11/09
  
  Yeah yeah yeah. Perhaps if the American magnate Murdoch wasn’t doing his best to strangle internet search, your piece might be a tick more credible. The fact is, using The Punch as an example, Murdoch propaganda isn’t *worth* paying for, on paper or online. Keeping your CV up to date, are you?
  
  Reply
- Michael says:
  
  08:28am | 27/11/09
  
  Make it pay to view, i’ll never bother reading it again, i’ll go to the ABC or BBC or any number of providers, on the flip side I wonder how you will continue to advertise to people like me who have browser add ons that block your ads and scripts, quite a pickle, though I must say if you weren’t always trying to sell me insurance i might be more interested in the ads, put ads up for gadgets and I might even click one.
  
  Sites like this one I think should allow you to register and have a profile, in the settings I should be able to select the kind of ads I want to see.
  
  Reply
- Dan says:
  
  09:36am | 27/11/09
  
  I refuse to pay for news. If I’m doing a google search for a particular news story, nothing makes me close the browser window faster than reading “To read the rest of this story, sign up to one of our subscription models…”
  
  Reply
- potrm says:
  
  10:04am | 27/11/09
  
  The success of iTunes and the app store proves people are willing to pay for ‘content’ and ‘services’ online. I’m at a loss as to why I can’t buy apps from Uncle Rupert that allow me to access news and video content. At the end of the day, Murdoch as to take some of the blame for his big Internet gripes. He’s dropped the ball many times, including the debacle that is myspace. Hell, if he had’ve bought me a sandwich and a coffee I could have told him exactly why that was such a shocking deal with negligable long-term benefit.
  
  Reply
- John Grey says:
  
  10:31am | 27/11/09
  
  I am confident that will come, potrm. The apps, not the sandwich.
  
  Reply
- firstdogonthemoon says:
  
  11:18am | 27/11/09
  
  My Dearest Mr Rat - That avatar is a gift to you, the only payment required is that you keep on being hilarious and adorable on the internet. But I retain copyright And my hugely funny cartoons are available for free two weeks after publication.
  
  Reply
- John Grey says:
  
  11:23am | 27/11/09
  
  I hereby pledge continued adorability.
  
  Reply
- Nick P says:
  
  11:23am | 27/11/09
  
  I dont need news sites anymore. I have my well informed twitter-sphere to keep me up to date with the goings on in the world. Cause they are like the new micro-blogging journalists man. ;p
  
  Reply
- EG says:
  
  11:29am | 27/11/09
  
  You have a point & then again maybe not - you’re right, people don’t buy news - they do however pay to see what’s behind the headline. It’s all about making the headline grab strong enough for people to part with funds, time, effort, whatever, so they can see or read the rest of the .....you guessed it, the “Headline”. Advertisers will always pay if you have the eyeballs or the subscribers & the readers/viewers will generally find a way to skip past the ads, during which process some of the ad info will inevitably slip through. Of course if you want your ads to be read or viewed, it’s not that hard…..simply make the headline of the ad grab your attention. Rupert has a problem in that the delivery, which has justified the cost so far, has become a heck of a lot cheaper, which means it’s fantastic for him if only we would be prepared to keep paying a buck a day - unfortunately (or fortunately in most of our cases) we can get loads for no bucks a day, so basically Rupert has a problem (if you want to ignore the fact that along with the problem he also has $10B).
  My prediction (it came to my in a dream, or perhaps after a few drinks) - business folk will pay for the Wall St Journal & similar publications because the release of the content is more easily controlled than the general headline grabber, oh…and also they can claim their subscription back on tax. However there will always be someone somewhere who will make the content available for free - if not then it will get passed around the traps similar to the way music is shared. And the irony of it all is that if the originators of the content (news, music, whatever) had been less greedy to start with, everybody would have happily paid a small amount in recognition of the effort/talent - but greedy news proprietors & ultra greedy record companies have screwed everybody for so long that we’re all fed up to the eyeballs (no pun intended).
  At the end of the day I do hope that they keep paying you though, because somebody has to dig up the often hidden facts & tell the story - so enjoy your lunch.
  And just for the record - I’m in the news media industry as well (both in broadcast & on-line).
  
  Reply
- aubrey says:
  
  11:42am | 27/11/09
  
  Eric said:
  “Crikey isn’t news either, it’s a left-wing propaganda organ.
  
  Certainly, True Believers are willing to pay for political activism in the guise of “news” - but most people are not True Believers. “
  
  I must protest. I am a Crikey subscriber primarily so I get a daily dose of firstdogonthemoon. The “news” I consider as free side dish. Crikey’s “left” bias is only relative to Murdoch papers. I’m actually happy for Rupert to allow Google to filter out its trash. Makes Google a better value proposition for me.
  
  Reply
- JohnM says:
  
  03:41pm | 27/11/09
  
  I quit as a Crikey subscriber because of the time it was taking. I couldn’t just ignore the email. It interests me that the New York Times tried a pay model for some of its content a couple of years back, only to drop the payment a few months later. We’ll se how Rupert goes.
  
  Reply
- Jeefunk says:
  
  04:13pm | 27/11/09
  
  Oh God, it’s so boring to hear this same tripe over and over about why people refuse to pay for content. The comments are predictable. ‘I never have and I never will’ they say. Real solid argument you have there. Let’s just surrender to a future where the ABC is our only ‘professional’ source of Australian news, or perhaps we can rely on user generated content. Did you follow the Iran election on Twitter? It was groundbreaking and revolutionary… it was also bloody annoying to navigate, polluted with garbage and inaccurate. Just pay the bloody $5 a week and keep the diversity for Christ’s sake, you tight-arse whingers.
  
  Reply
- Socrates says:
  
  04:15pm | 27/11/09
  
  Yeah, I’ve been revolting for years too. But what’s really revolting are the bloggers who write their post BEFORE whatever they are pushing/demonising has appeared.
  
  Both Left and Right, and the much maligned Centre, can be pretty silly at times, but they can also make a lot of sense. We are lucky to live in a country where (so far) all shades can be published and debated.
  
  Reply
- Nickk says:
  
  02:31am | 28/11/09
  
  Jeefunk: “Did you follow the Iran election on Twitter? It was groundbreaking and revolutionary… it was also bloody annoying to navigate, polluted with garbage and inaccurate”
  
  Sounds like most online news sites to me…
  
  Reply