“I could bitch about this all day.” These words popped up in the form of a Google Talk message from a friend, who included a link to the BBC News version of the story.
A few days ago, another friend blogged about it too. He caused quite a stir on Facebook.
My fingers have been burning to write about The New York Times’ latest announcement.
When I first heard about The New York Times’ decision to start charging for content, my first reaction was “Crap, I don’t want to pay for content. I’m totally broke.”
I am so spoiled. We are all so damn spoiled by the Internet. With one click, we can find information about anything we freaking want. If one website makes us pay for it, another website will offer it for free.
I realized something, though. Criticizing a business for trying to make money is so UNAmerican. Journalism is a business like 7-11 and Amazon.com are businesses, even though they use different models.
The writer in me is happy that The New York Times is charging for content. The Times has some of the best writers in the business, and they deserve to be compensated handsomely. If I had to pay for a subscription, I might actually be encouraged to read more.
These days, very few people value a well-told story. They want to get the essential information (which can now be had in 140-character tweets) and get on with their lives; I don’t blame them! Most people don’t want to read languorous, exploratory articles. They don’t have the time to appreciate a well-written feature story.
Furthermore, no one cares about the way that news is packaged unless they are an elitist snob. Let’s be honest; some people like to brag about the fact that they read the Times. I have to admit that I used to buy the Sunday Times very frequently, partially because it made me feel cool and intellectual to spend half a day going through the paper. I also legitimately enjoyed it.
But I have since stopped buying it. Because when I buy coffee on Sunday morning, I pick up the now-thin Times that costs $6 or whatever, and I feel so badly spending money on something full of advertisements.
If the New York Times wants us to pay for content, then they should promise less intrusive advertising, both in the print edition and online. I realize that the publication has to sustain itself somehow, so I tolerate advertising. But if I’m paying a premium, I want fewer ads. The New York Times doesn’t plan to do away with advertising, though:
“The approach the company took is ‘the one that after much research and study we determined has the most upside’ in both subscriptions and advertising, Mr. Nisenholtz said. ‘We’re trying to maximize revenue. We’re not saying we want to put this revenue stream above that revenue stream. The goal is to maximize both revenue streams in combination.’”
When you ask your readers to pay for content, you have to spend more time catering to readers’ needs and desires. The editors should do a better job interacting with the audience (hint: it’s easy online!), be less political, and crowdsource its readers for feedback. The more you ask of your readers, the more you have to provide to them directly.
Overall, I say, “Good for them.” It’s about time a newspaper did something bold and shocking in the world of online publishing. However, they can’t chicken out like they did with Times Select – I think they pulled out way too soon.
“This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going to answer so many of the questions that we all care about,” Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the company chairman and publisher of the newspaper, said in an interview. “We can’t get this halfway right or three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really right.”
You know what, Mr. Sulzberger? You’re not going to get it right on the first try because YOU HAVE NO IDEA how it’s going to work out for you. If you fail, well then that sucks, but if you succeed? AWESOME. The writers are not going anywhere – they are just going to be snatched up by someone with better ideas and more business savvy.
If a well respected paper like the Times can stick to its guns with a business model, other papers will soon have to follow suit, right?
Someone has to step up from the media muck and do something bold. Some papers already have.
“Two specialized papers already charge readers: The Wall Street Journal, which makes certain articles accessible only to subscribers, and The Financial Times, which allows nonpaying readers to see up to 10 articles a month, a system close to what is planned by The Times.”
People will pay for content because it’s exclusive and hard to find from reputable sources. What The New York Times offers that other papers don’t is excellent writing, especially in regard to the more feature-based pieces like arts, culture, and society. To be honest, those are the things I really like to read. If I want news, I will go to a news source like CNN or the Associated Press. The writing there is no-frills, but at least I will get my information quickly and efficiently.
The problem is that I discover most great writing online by chance. I don’t regularly read any one newspaper; I usually glance over headlines from a number of different sources. I find most of the awesome stuff via Facebook and Twitter because I follow people with similar interests who will direct me to articles that I will enjoy. Articles find me.
How will subscription-based content affect content sharing via social media? How will people share articles and find new awesome things/be inspired by great writing when it can’t be shared as easily? Newspaper articles can be clipped and passed around, but online articles that require a subscription cannot be shared so easily.
Most readers who go to the Times site, as with other news sites, are incidental visitors, arriving no more than once in a while through searches and links, and many of them would be unaffected by the new system. A much smaller number of committed readers account for the bulk of the site visits and page views, and the essential question is how many of them will pay to continue that habit.
Editors, don’t you WANT people to enjoy and share good writing? Don’t you want your content to be easy to discover?
P.S. I would kill for an audience the size of The New York Times (17 million readers a month in the United States, according to Nielsen Online). If you plan on boycotting the paper when it starts to charge for its content, just remember that what I offer here will always be free. And I will continue to be broke yet passionate about what I do.
(Photo by david.orban)
If I had to guess, The Times will probably allow people to share article excerpts (eg, first 300 words) via social media.
Ah, to have the luxury of 17 million readers each month!
That jives pretty well with my thoughts on paying for content in general. I just don’t think the New York Times can continue to be what she is–a massive news organization–and still compete in an online ecosystem. That’s a lot of adaptation for a big company like that to make. It’s like if you teleported an African elephant to the middle of the Amazon rain forest. Sure it would thrash around a lot and kill some trees, but it wouldn’t be long before a hoard of army ants reduced it to a skeleton. Maybe that wasn’t the prettiest analogy, but you get my point.