Without doubt the biggest challenge facing the publishing world at the moment is the continued boom of free online access to content. While audiences my feel they have the right to view anything and everything online without charge, this is a model that is quite simply unsustainable and does not reward the journalists who produce it.
Yes, with the arrival of the global network there will always be someone somewhere to describe the events happening on their doorstep and disseminate it through whichever medium they choose. But where do the audience find the authority that the mass-media provide to trust this source?
Since the penny dropped over a decade ago that the world wide web was hear to stay, and every organisation - media or not - was going to have a presence on this new space, there has been a continued growth in the volume, variety and quality of content being made freely available.
However, this has caused the longstanding and usually trusted mass-media organisations one heck of a problem, which they were rather slow to catch on to.
In the rush to become the biggest - and therefore the best - online newspaper, publishers threw caution to the wind and made all their published content freely available on their websites. They even started adding extra features and elements to their sites that could only be found online.
The information age had truely arrived, and the public took advantage.
It`s hardly surprising that instead of buying daily newspapers and periodical magazines, people started logging on to find out today's breaking news for free, rather than reaching into their pockets every morning to purchase yesterday's news. As a result, newspapers shed readers like sheep do fleeces in summer.
To compound this, newspapers suffered a double hit. Not only were they facing falling sales income, but as the circulations dropped, so too did the revenues from advertising that depend on audience figures. This was hard enough to tackle in calm economic seas, but as the recession wind and waves began to blow, advertising took a back seat as companies battened down the hatches to ride out the full force of the storm.
It has become obvious this cannot continue, and newspapers will need to raise serious revenue sums from their websites. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal already charge subscriptions for access to their content, but these are specific publications, targetting an audience that can afford to pay. Suggestions for subscriptions to websites of mainstream titles have largely been received icily.
But audiences are warming to another idea. Micro-payments.
The reader pays a few pennies for every article read, with the value depending on the type of article, author etc.
This system, if operated correctly, could even save Britain's printed press.
At say, 5p per article, if a person reads ten a day, that equals 50p. Depending on your chosen title, that is anywhere from half to the full cover price of most daily newspapers.
Using this method almost all readers can be satisfied.
Those who want to read just one or two stories that take their interest, whether through searches or news aggregator sites, can do so for a very minor charge; while people who want a fuller look at upto a dozen articles, will pay for about half the cover price.
But the most exciting element comes for those heavy readers, who want to digest the whole paper over breakfast, on the train to work, and then finish off at lunch. They can either buy an online "copy", or even pick up a regular print version for the same price.
Of course there are issues around it to consider, such as updating stories throughout the day on websites. But the theory could see people who would heavily access content only on particular days buying the paper instead to receive all the extra articles in addition to their preferred online stories.
If enacted properly and sensibly, with cross-industry co-operation, it could see the resurgence and re-vitalisation of a once vibrant and dynamic national press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment