Why Pay-For-News Won't Work: The First Mover Disadvantage
By Tom Foremski - February 16, 2009
As newspapers lose revenues from their print business they are forced to rely on revenues from their online business. But their costs of running a news organization are far higher than their online revenues.
Print advertising was once able to cover the costs of running a newspaper and do it profitably. But online advertising cannot cover the costs of running a news organization--even when online readership is larger than paper readership and growing.
This problem of more readers, yet declining revenues, is frustrating the newspaper industry. Lately, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion within the newspaper industry on this issue and the emerging consensus is that readers will have to pay for the news. It might be micropayments, it might be a monthly subscription, but the era of free news is going to go away.
The Wall Street Journal is a good example of a business model that appears to be working--it offers some free news but it charges a subscription for most of its news. And this seems to be the type of business model with the most support among newspaper publishers.
But who will go first?
The Wall Street Journal is a specialist newspaper without much competition. Daily newspapers have a broad range of news content and there is a lot of overlap in their news stories. Any metropolitan daily newspaper will have many of the same stories as any other metropolitan daily.
They all use a tremendous amount of wire copy from Associated Press, Reuters, Dow Jones, Bloomberg, etc, even if the newswire stories are from their locality. This was fine when newspapers monopolized their regions because you couldn't get that news in any other way.
Now, thanks (or no thanks) to the Internet, newspapers thousands of miles from each other compete for the same readers. A columnist in Chicago now gets to compete against a columnist in New York or Philadelphia. A movie reviewer in San Diego now competes against a movie reviewer in Toronto.
Most newspapers have very low brand loyalty. More than 60 per cent of newspapers' web site traffic comes from search engines and news aggregators -- and not from people going directly to their site.
This is the first mover disadvantage. Lock up your content behind a paywall and your readers will find free news stories elsewhere.
There is a last mover advantage. The last newspaper to charge for content wins, at which point they'll also have a huge readership collected from all the other newspapers.
This is why pay-for-news won't work.
So what is the solution? How can newspapers transition to becoming viable news organizations that make money through paper or electron?
It's a situation best described by the Maine saying: "You can't get there from here." It's a phrase that doesn't seem make any sense but it makes perfect sense in this context: The mainstream media world cannot transition to the newstream media world of online revenues. Your online revenues cannot support the costs of your news organization. You can't get there from here.
This is why the Internet is a disruptive technology. And the key point about a disruptive technology is that it disrupts. It disrupts individual companies and entire industries. Even though you can clearly see the train wreck way ahead of you, you can't get out of the way, you cannot downsize quickly enough, you cannot change tracks quickly enough--you slam into it.
The newspaper industry clearly sees the train wreck of its print business model way ahead. It will slam straight into it.
- - -
Please see:
- "Google Devalues Everything It Touches" - Wall Street Journal Chief
- Bye-Bye Free News - Murdoch Joins The Pay Debate
- Saturday Post: The Inevitable Rise Of Cockroach Media . . .
- Pandora's Box 1981: The Online Newspaper Experiment
« "Google Devalues Everything It Touches" - Wall Street Journal Chief | Main | Some Ideas On Reinventing Newspapers »
February 16, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Technology In The Service Of Humanity
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- SNCR Research: Social Media IS Influencing Business Decisions
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
- MediaWatch Analysis Part II: Google Has More To Lose Than Murdoch
- MediaWatch Analysis: Murdoch Will Negotiate Payment For Access To Basket Of Content With GOOG et al
- WeekendWatcher: The Sheer Number Of Things Will Devalue Them
- ChipWatch - Where Will The Next Generation Of Engineers Come From?
- Public Healthcare Could Cut Startup Costs And Help Spur Innovation
- Is GOOG's $750m AdMob Buy Strategic Or Dumb? An alternate view...
Comments (7)
Very interesting, hugely relevant. Wish I had more time to give thought to this at the moment, but don't.
For starters, nevertheless: Though this is being raised as a business issue--"How are newspapers going to survive?"--it's fundamental to all of us because the questions, "How will we know what we know of the world?", "Who will have a voice and an audience?", and "Who will be the gatekeepers?" are tied up with the answer to this and other questions about changing media.
Posted: February 16, 2009 12:07 PM
I agree but still it is a good idea.....
Posted: February 16, 2009 11:42 PM
Very good point about last mover advantage.
One solution to this is for newspapers to move together. This would require cooperation by the majority of newspapers - which may be difficult (and anti-competitive?). But drastic times call for drastic measures. Newspapers then create their own search engine which is the only one to have access to their "higher quality" content.
Cronan
Posted: February 17, 2009 2:46 AM
Tom,
Rather than verbosely spilling off your page, I have expressed an opinion catalysed by your typically on the money article via http://tinyurl.com/dn7rmg. as an entrepreneur, salesman and customer, which are the three opinions seemingly drowning in the noise of this debate, but are perhaps the most relevant?
Thanks,
Posted: February 17, 2009 4:25 AM
Anne: Yes, exactly, how will we know our world? How will we know what is true and what is misinformation?
Cronan: I can't see newspapers moving together especially when the winning strategy is last mover advantage. But I do have a couple possible solutions...
Jan: Yes, very good advice. Everytime I see Google AdSense on a newspaper's front page I wonder why they have given over the customer relationship to another media company. I also like the membership option.
Posted: February 17, 2009 10:28 AM
Tom thanks for your comment, it's doing wonders for my 'blogstreet cred'. The URL link seemingly doesn't work with the dot so http://tinyurl.com/dn7rmg for anyone that cares!
Posted: February 17, 2009 12:47 PM
I've always thought newspapers are missing an opportunity. One of the values of a newspaper is their brand. People think of newspapers as the center of a community. It's where you go to learn what's happened in your community. In many cases, it's the result of a hundred years of establishing a brand, and it's incredibly valuable. What if, rather than fighting those disrupters, you exploited them. Imagine if I could click on a map, or type in my zip code and be linked to all of the uber-local news in my neighborhood. And with classified - why not take a page from itunes and let people create open accounts. Sign up once and be charge 99cents to list their garage sale - that links to a google map with directions and a Flickr page to show pictures of the items they have for sale. Your brother in-law links to his YouTube video of the car he has for sale, and to the bluebook webpage for that car model. An ad for somebody's lost cat pulls up a Google map and links to Flickr page photo of the pet. Local merchants ads are linked to their own video-commercials they've post on YouTube, a google map, their website. Nobody posts just once, the same way nobody make only one purchase on itunes. And because the poster is responsible for managing the information - when they want it deleted, they take down the posting - it takes little effort for the paper to manage. Newspaper don't host content, they direct the viewer from their classified site. They're merely the central distributor of the local mash-ups. Let YouTube and Flickr do the heavy lifting. It's craigslist with video, Youtube with local connections, Facebook for news. There's a ton of viral content out there, but no way to directly link it to the most appropriate community. If I could type in my zip code and get a page of merchant commercials (dry cleaners, restaurants, car repair) or on Saturday morning check the garage sales, lost pets, local news, I'd feel totally linked to my community, and I'd come back. And all those banner ads that need a home can be specifically targeted to your, car repair, garage sale, restaurants, real estate, lost pets, and every other section of your online classified section. Your little ads are selling bigger ads But, the gutsiest move would be to pull the local news from the web. Before long, any "news" online would be suspect and best left to gossip blogs and "citizen journalists. If people wanted local news they'd have to pay 50 cents for it. Papers could do what the web can't. Compelling photo essays, big information graphics, beautiful page design and real journalism. Lay off the mindless twittering and pointless, blog updates. (Nobody stood in line to get a twitter from Election Day.) Quit worrying about how many clicks you're getting. You're journalists - investigate, analyze, provide a public service. Let classified web advertising be a whole other animal - the cash cow. The internet can do a lot. But you can get in trouble thinking it can do everything.
Posted: February 20, 2009 4:11 PM