Home
Marcel Weiss's Library tagged → View Popular
Meedia: Paid-Content, stern.de, der lustige Lanz
-
Zu dem Zeitpunkt, als die "FAZ" das komplette Interview online stellte, war der Rahm schon längst abgeschöpft. Zig Websites und Tweets hatten bereits die magere Kurzfassung verlinkt. Und viele Nachrichten- und Medien-Angebote (auch MEEDIA) hatten das Interview bereits zusammengefasst und darüber berichtet. Was hat die "FAZ" nun davon gehabt, dass sie das komplette Interview nicht gleich veröffentlicht hat? Sie hat weniger Links und damit weniger Reichweite auf die Geschichte bekommen, als möglich wäre. Was hätte die "FAZ" tun sollen? Das ganze Interview nur zahlenden Kunden zur Verfügung stellen? Dann hätten andere Nachrichtendienste und Agenturen den Inhalt des Interviews ebenfalls zusammengefasst und veröffentlicht und die "FAZ" hätte noch weniger Online-Reichweite generiert. Was also ist das Kalkül hinter der zeitversetzten Veröffentlichung? Denkt man, der Leser wird durch dieZusammenfassung angefixt und eilt zum Kiosk, um sich die "FAZ" zu kaufen? Oder er schließt womöglich ein Abo ab, um künftig gleich informiert zu werden? Kaum vorstellbar.
Xark!: The newspaper suicide pact
The issue is “paid content.” That's the generic term. I consider it a euphemism for an entire suite of frustrations and furies that have been boiling out of my former profession since its once-invincible business model began its final slide to the deep in 2008. On the surface, paid content is the reasonable idea that people should have to pay for the professionally produced content they consume. Its core, however, is a post-rational demand that consumers abandon their habits of the past decade in favor of new behaviors intended to restore media companies to the profitability ordained to them by God Almighty.
Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online | Techdirt
-
The problem with charging is that you can only charge in the absence of competition. With something like Time Magazine... there's tons of competition for that sort of information.
-
I think the point is that you DO need to charge -- but the question is what are you charging for. The point (apparently not clear enough) is that charging for content that isn't limited and is in a competitive market won't work. That's just simple economics.
- 1 more annotations...
Nickel-and-dimed to death « BuzzMachine
-
[Y]ou find many ways to say that papers should charge and that readers should pay, without saying why, without addressing the value to the public and the competitive economic environment for the publisher, and without getting specific about the complete financial projections of your model.
-
Now is the time to be bluntly honest: What is the real value of newspapers as they are made today? What are they worth?
That is asking the question from the customer’s point of view, and that is where this discussion must start.
Online Publications Still Think They Can Get Away With Charging For Access | Techdirt
-
Cutting off people through a subscription wall presents additional problems, such as convincing any new readers you're actually worth it compared to all the free content out there -- and, most importantly, staying a part of the relevant conversation. These days, that's a lot more important than the content itself (though few newspapers recognize it yet). Also, focusing on charging simply opens up an opportunity for others to create similarly compelling and valuable content for free... and siphoning away your paying readership.
-
The real issue
The real issue (in my experience) is that most publishers do not really understand the economics (in the academic sense of the word) of their own business.
Few of them understand that they are brokers. Of what you might ask? They are brokers of attention, they "buy" people's attention and then sell that attention to advertisers.
The problem facing the industry is that there has been a sea change in the supply and demand. Prior to the Internet, attention was relatively abundant compared to the supply of content (the medium of exchange with which publishers "bought" the user's attention).
Today there is an overabundance of content, which makes the reader's attention the scarce commodity, so the "cost" of capturing that attention has increased dramatically.
Whereas previously attention was so abundant and content so scarce, publishers could actually charge both advertisers and readers, today reader's will only pay for content that will make them money AND is unavailable from any other source.
However the overabundance presents opportunities that traditional publishers are very slow in picking up on. One in particular: the information glut is so serious, that reader's (and other information consumers) need tools to help them self-select the content that they are interested in (out of the sea of content that they are not interested in). News papers have people who are highly trained professionals in that: editorial staff.
Publishers have assets that can be re-purposed to generate revenues, all they have to do is accept the changed economics.
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in paidcont...
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo
Adam Wasserman - Jan 28th, 2009 @ 7:00pm