Why a paywall is essential for journalism
Shortly after The Times put up a paywall The Guardian posted figures that showed 90% fewer readers than pre-paywall. The people who left the Times most likely didn’t give up altogether on reading a newspaper but moved to a paywall-free newspaper like The Guardian.
The question comes up whether a paywall is the right thing to do for a newspaper. They lose readers and thus lose online revenue. But a paywall is essential for the survival of journalism. Newspapers and media corporations need to figure out the right kind of paywall. The obvious utopian solution would be to have all major newspapers come together and figure out a common system of online distribution. Of course something like that will never happen. But it is necessary that all major national newspapers have a paywall.
If we take a look over at Hollywood we can see that people are willing to pay for quality. When Avatar came out as the first major 3D film torrent posts of the movie were filled with comments that stated that people should go see the 3D version instead of downloading it, which many did.
A country’s major newspapers are the main newspapers because the quality is better than other newspapers in that country. Charging for quality content is not wrong. It does more good for journalism and journalists than harm. The smaller newspapers without a paywall will gain some more readers and give their journalists more exposure. Those journalists will then have a bigger chance of getting seen by one of the “bigs” and getting picked up by them. That way local newspapers, not behind a paywall, can serve as a springboard for journalists. Much like today except for the fact that they will also be in the public eye.
This does not mean that major newspapers will lose revenue to smaller, local papers. On the contrary they could gain readers who follow their favorite journalists over to the “big” paper. People not willing to pay to get behind the paywall on their web browser will go over to the e-reader version or print version, both of which have to be paid for. This will revive journalism since people can read their local paper online and read the major newspapers when they’re not on their computers.
Now to the paywall model. The newspapers that now have a paywall, like The Times; The Financial Times and the Washington Post, activate their paywall as soon as you click on an article or after having read one or two articles. Even if you don’t have a membership with that newspaper you still see the same front page as paying users which is the wrong kind of paywall. Newspapers need to add more advertisements for free users.
Newspapers look almost ad-free these days. Use bigger advertisements on the top of your webpage. Pop-under and pop-up advertisements need to be added. People will easily get annoyed with advertisements and either pay for online use with reduced advertisements or buy a print/e-reader version. For those that would buy the print version there should be a unique code(see Augmented Reality barcodes) in each newspaper that would make the online version available for that day.
Even if a newspaper is behind a paywall it can still make certain articles available to free readers. For example make the main news available since either way that will be available to a web user and block analyses, smaller more specific articles and editorials that are unique to that paper. This promotes not the news in itself which people can access through TV and radio but the journalists that make and have made journalism important to society over the years.
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Why do you believe that charging for news does more good for journalism and journalists than harm? What are you basing that assertion on?
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
This is just a quick thought that I intend to expand in a proper post, but felt it should be contributed earlier rather than later.
Why do we think that journalism (as in the content) must pay for itself – it never has. The cover price of a paper was always a token contribution to the cost of production – advertising paid for printing.
So I am not sure why we are trying to monetize content in this manner – of course we need new revenue streams, but I am not sure content is the answer.
The Washington Post has been supported by another business that the parent company owns.
Anyway, it is very poorly formed – but let rip.
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Because newspaper sales are going down and consumers are turning to free online news more and more. And if you aren’t a newspaper with record online visitors your paper will make less money and have to cut costs to survive. What is the most common form of cutting costs? Downsizing. That means letting journalists and editors go. What’s good in journalism if newspapers don’t have enough journalists?
Charging consumers for news makes it possible to hire more journalists. The more the better wouldn’t you say?
September 3rd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
To be honest? No. More journalists working for large print-first organisations does not necessarily mean better journalism. Journalism exists outside the centuries-old paradigm of large media organisations, and I firmly believe the faster we rush into charging people for content they can get elsewhere for free, the more we hasten the demise of those organisations. And I work for a local newspaper, so I too would rather not see any more redundancies, but I can accept that what’s best for the profession and for news consumers is not necessarily what’s best for my paycheck.
Free online news is not going away. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that all national news sources – not just newspapers – should shove themselves behind a paywall so that information is simply inaccessible online. That seems to me to be something which will simply never happen – not least because the BBC exists.
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
No, free online news will never go away just as free print news existed. But people should have to pay for something that is unique. The BBC is not something unique. The Times and The Guardian are unique in their analyses, editorials and articles. People should have to pay for something like that.
Why would making people pay for news ‘hasten the demise of those organizations’? Just because people have to pay doesn’t mean that they will all disappear. What would make them disappear even faster is giving everything out for free.
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I find your use of the word “should” interesting. The internet doesn’t owe us a living. As Nick points out above, no one has ever paid exclusively for news content; they’re unlikely to start now.
And I question your definition of “unique” – op-ed is all over the internet and certainly not limited to individual brands, and I (and many other news consumers) want a multiplicity of voices, not the same three commentators preaching to a gated community.
Making people pay for things they don’t want simply doesn’t work. This is why print circulation is declining. The last thing print-first orgs need is to compound that by decimating their online circulation and making their good, relevant, interesting, stand-out content impossible for new readers to discover and old readers to share. That’s why I think it’d kill rather than cure – it compounds the same problems we have in print and transfers them online.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Good day to you and thank you for a provocative posting.
I find if I cannot SELL the unique pieces of my labour I cannot feed my family or myself.
I have learned no one is OBLIGED to pay me and there are no great and wealthy institutions of WORD and PICTURE to do so. Thus, I must find patrons who will favour my name in return for my time, skills and expense of ink.
I am a BUSINESS of journalism and I think it better to understand so at the outset.
My regards,
Tob. GRUBBE
Gentl. of WORD and PICTURE
Articles published on every Monday
September 3rd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
[...] interesting post extolling the virtues of the paywall by Julien Rath as part of journalism.co.uk’s excellent TNTJ group blog has really gotten me [...]
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm
People have always paid for news content. How did newspaper work in the 60s? There weren’t the problems with newspaper sales that we have today. Newspaper sales really began to decline after the dot-com boom. We wouldn’t be bringing the problems print has to the internet. On the other having people pay would fix the problems that newspapers have because of the internet.
I also just read your blog post. I just want to point out that if you would pay for The Times your Google searches would have more Times results at the top. Google recognizes where you have your paywall account and pushes those results to the top. About the NY Times paywall, it’s the most ridiculous paywall solution I’ve ever heard. If you’re going to charge people be fair and charge everybody. The solution that they have proposed just invites people, even regulars, to cheat via proxies and such. The point of a paywall isn’t to drive more traffic to your site, it’s to get subscribers. With a paywall a newspaper isn’t going to make most of its money from advertising, it’s going to be from subscription costs.
If you’re going to try to finance a news source only via picture sales, family notices and such you’ll never survive more than a year.
Once again, I believe that news content will never die even if you have to pay for every bit of it. That’s just a fundamental belief I have.
To spread a paywall you have to promote its exclusivity. Just take a look at how Facebook became popular. It was exclusive to the Ivy League then spread to the elite UK schools. Then other college students were asking for it. It spread because it was exclusive. Use the same technique with a paywall and eventually people will get used to it and pay up.
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Brief responses as I’m on my way out of the door -
If you’ve read my post I’d suggest reading the other posts I linked about the myth of readers paying for content.
What on earth are subscribers if they’re not “traffic you’ve driven to your site” that’s stuck around? Where do they come from?
Exclusivity only works if you’re offering a service no one else is. I think we’ve established that you think the Times (for instance) is, and I don’t.
If you’re going to finance a news source “only” through anything at all, you won’t survive. Particularly a paywall. Papers need multiple overlapping revenue streams to survive. I wasn’t suggesting “only” one thing – lots of different things all at the same time are a much better option please. Just not paywalls, because once you introduce a paywall most of your other monetisation options online hit big problems due to lack of traffic.
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
VIEWING of any object (as the ladies of the Covent Garden Market tell me) only produces PROFIT when the desired product is UNOBTAINABLE elsewhere.
You may take a news sheet from a WINDOW and place it behind a WALL where you cannot see it but, unless you have a truly COMPELLING proposition, far superior to your COMPETITORS, you are unlikely to have many customers.
I agree with Mary Hamilton. Many news sheets will find STRENGTH through a DIVERSITY of activities. If one such effort becomes particularly popular then perhaps a more lucrative closed audience exclusivity may emerge – in time.
Rgds,
GRUBBE
September 6th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
“When Avatar came out as the first major 3D film torrent posts of the movie were filled with comments that stated that people should go see the 3D version instead of downloading it, WHICH MANY DID” << evidence??
I smell an unfounded assertion. How could you possibly know whether those that were about to download a torrent changed their mind and went to the cinema instead? I hope you've come across a new method of surveying online, otherwise your journalism is just as shoddy as your understanding of the economics of news.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Tom – You see what you’re doing is an assumption. As my uncle says assumption is the mother of all f***ups. In public schools(no idea what private is like) more than enough kids download movies. That’s just common. Out of all the people I know who regularly downloaded movies they all went and paid money to see Avatar. And the ticket sales showed it. In addition I know more than enough people in, what they call, the scene. I even used to be strongly involved in it and I’ve done things I’m ashamed of today. So I can definitely assume that I know much more about downloading and uploading movies and the people involved in it than you do. Thus I can state such a thing.
There’s also no reason to take a couple statements and make them part of a personal accusation/argument. Try to focus on the issue and not the person.
I’ll be responding to Tobias’ and Mary’s comments tomorrow. I just got home from a long day at work and need some sleep.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am
[...] interesting post extolling the virtues of the paywall by Julien Rath as part of journalism.co.uk’s excellent TNTJ group blog has really gotten me [...]
September 8th, 2010 at 7:54 am
[...] It was a response to an article praising the paywall concept by Julien Rath. [...]
September 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I’m sorry Julien, but your post has failed to tell me why a paywall is essential to journalism.
It is essential for journalists to make a living from journalism, but I don’t get from your article why this is necessarily through paywalls.
Paywalls are essentially applying the same offline business model online. The way we engage with online content is different and therefore needs a different business model.
Perhaps this is what you have said, but your argument was quite difficult to read i’m afraid, and with a provocative title like that I was expecting a strong argument to support your statement ‘Why a paywall is essential to journalism’.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I also just read your comment about facebook and have to respond!
Ummm, Facebook wasn’t successful because it was exclusive, it started small and then grew big because it WASN’T exclusive and in fact connected people together (as opposed to exclusivity creating an ‘us’ and ‘them’).
It can’t be compared to newspaper paywalls in any way because people do not pay for it!
Also, you are correlating the two things in the wrong way (decline of print sales and growth of online readership).
If the only source of printed news is a newspaper you have to pay for, yes, people will buy it.
The internet came along and people found there were other sources of news (and not just online versions of print newspapers).
Suddenly, an industry that previously has had no competitors, is facing the internet, which offers a billion and one different things.
The internet has subtly uncovered that readers don’t necessarily want what the newspapers are offering. Hence a fall in sales.
The question is really, what do online readers want? how do they use the internet, how do they read content, how do they share it etc etc.
Get a better idea of what the reader wants, and newspapers (online and print) can better provide it.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Julien,
Print newspaper readers who leave the print product are not simply shifting their consumption to the free newspaper website – they’re leaving newspaper content entirely.
This fact is visible through the relative amounts of time spent with newspaper content online and in print.
To wit, print readers spend something like 13 hours per month with their newspaper whereas online newspaper readers spend roughly 35 minutes.
It’s incomprehensible to me how making those 35 minutes more expensive will do anything helpful for journalism.