Tag: content

People will pay for online news? Now we’re talkin’

A study by Boston Consulting Group indicates people are increasingly willing to pay for local and national news delivered to their mobile devices.

On average, according to the study, the price would have to top out at about $3 a month, which admittedly isn’t much. But it offers two strong points of optimism:

People are willing to pay SOMETHING for what was previously assumed to be of no commercial value.

$3 a month, for a product that no longer has the production or distribution cost of a printed product, is worth far more in the way of earnings than it would be for a traditional media product.

No, this isn’t proof that consumers will pay the full cost of journalism. But does demonstrate that they are aware of the pressure that traditional media models are under as advertising revenue continues to erode; and that they are warming up to being part of the solution.

News: Not dead, but being reborn

This article, on the effort by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar to start a local news service in Honolulu, validates my postion that journalism and the news business are not dead or dying. They are being taken up by a new generation of media outsiders – people who value news and aren’t so burdened by years of “training” in the industry, that they can see new possibilities that may exist. It also helps that they aren’t burdened by an infrastructure built over decades to support old business models.

The article doesn’t say much about Omidyar’s business model – but he intends the service to be for-profit and to generate new contet.

A couple things about this jump out at me – in addition to the obvious fact that it’s at least one more person who’s not willing to give up on the news.

  • New news businesses tend to be local – where there is less competition to provide information, and where the advertising crisis has had the least impact.
  • The goals of new news businesses are modest; the ones I’m hearing about tend to seek primacy in a small area, to have a good impact on a relatively small number of people, and make a little money in the process.

Which strikes me as a pretty good way to rebuild an industry that is in historic transition.

Years from now, there will be big players again, who have figured out how to consolidate the many small for-profit news operations that are popping up. Some of those big players will be the same names that are familiar in media circles today. Others will be new.

And the news business will look very different from the way it does right now.

But it will be a business and an industry.

Somehow.

A novel notion for monetizing the news

While newspapers are wallowing in catastrophic circulation losses, their online revenues are falling short of objectives, and more people look to the web for news, Amos Gelb, a former TV guy and now an associate professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, suggests a new model for profiting from running a serious news operation: cost transference.

In short, the idea is for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – his example is Verizon Internet – to pay for news feeds on a per-subscriber basis. It’s how CNN works – collecting 37 cents per subscriber from every cable television provider that carries CNN (which is pretty much all of them). While CNN does earn revenue on advertising sales, its most dependable revenue stream is from the cable providers – which in turn simply pass that cost along to consumers as part of the cost for basic service on their monthly bill. And consumers don’t seem to mind – even though there is plenty of market evidence right now that they wouldn’t pay the same 37 cents per month directly to CNN if given the choice.

How does this transfer to newspapers? The largest news organizations (Gelb cites Time Warner, New York Times and Washington Post) would block their content to ISPs, except when paid on a subscriber basis. Those ISPs that make the payments would then pass along the cost to subscribers.

People who care about getting news content online would gravitate toward those ISPs that provide it.

The model strikes me, on its surface, as incredibly complicated given the wide range of business models that exist among ISPs. It also doesn’t include the many smaller news organizations that, one way or another, are going to survive, but will never be large enough to command attention from ISPs.

I don’t ever really expect to see the model play out as Gelb describes it. But I like the out-of-the-box thinking he brings to the discussion, and I agree with his assessment that news is something people want, and something people will pay for – just not directly.

In fact, the way I see it, it’s already playing out on small scale and through a slightly different medium: the burgeoning app store business.

There are now multiple places where smart-phone users can buy applications: iPhone’s App Store, Blackberry’s App World, and soon, Palm’s App Catalog. Each of these offers apps that let you aggregate and read news from various sources. Many are free, some cost money – from a $2.99 one-time download fee to monthly subscriptions (or so I’m told, though I haven’t actually found one on the monthly model in my time at either of the functioning app marketplaces).

So people are paying money to download an app that will deliver the same news they could get for free right now on the Internet? It’s a little different than the model Gelb envisions, but it plays out the same way psychologically: People who buy these apps aren’t actually paying for news; they’re paying for a new gadget on the smart phone. The cost has been transferred.

Gelb’s notion is heavy lifting, to be sure. To achieve the kind of behavior change that he describes, large news organizations are going to have to give up on their most cherished belief: that increased profit necessarily derives from increased distribution. And then they would have to convince numerous other organizations – like Google, Yahoo, Verizon and AT&T – to alter their business practices, all while risking the anger of their paid customers.

It sounds like a long shot at best. But the drastic decline in circulation and revenue that news media is experiencing is, if nothing else, a strong motivator.

Rocky Mountain News closes for the 3rd time

The Rocky Mountain Independent has closed just two months after it started. The Independent was formed from the ashes of InDenverTimes.com – which actually still exists as a free information site, but not with any of the well-intentioned people who started it five months before the Independent.

Both of these were created by jobless journalists jilted by the February closing of the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News.

The closing is sad, but predictable. The online-only effort at covering news in Denver was started for the wrong reasons (early-onset nostalgia), it had an implausible business model (premium priced news content), and it was run by the wrong people (journalists).

For the ultimate review on the subject, check out Alan Mutter’s Newsosaur blog. Everything he writes about this episode is spot-on and couldn’t be said any better.

But I will emphasize one point: Once upon a time, the news business might have been about the quality of reporting. And I know that some very strong journalism schools are still teaching that it still is. What else should they teach: mediocrity?

But it’s dead wrong. With the exception of some notable niches, content today is judged on a strictly pass-fail basis. It is either not good enough, or it is good enough.

For most media today, there is no ROI in anything that aspires to be better than good enough.

I’m not saying that great journalism doesn’t have a redeeming social value. Of course it does. It’s the bedrock of democracy; it’s the record of humanity.

There’s just no money in it.

If only print could be more like TV in trying to be more like the ‘Net

An interesting bit of information from the TV world:

The new Jay Leno Show is particularly successful in one area: reduction time-shifting – which is the practice of watching a show at a time other then when it airs – basically through TiVo or other recording devices.

Last year, according to a report in MediaBuyerPlanner, which cites TiVo as its source, 70 percent of viewers watched NBC’s 10 p.m. programming on a time-shifted basis; only 30 percent watched it live.

The good news is that’s improved to about 50 percent watching it live and 50 percent recording it to watch later. What’s amazing to me is that half the audience basically refuses to watch the show on the network’s terms. Given the technology, consumers are telling television insiders exactly what they want and how/when they want to watch it.

That’s not to say the networks are responding like champions. But I have to say, subjectively, that bumping even a couple reality shows in favor of a talk-entertainment show like Leno’s is a step in the right direction. And maybe that’s what the audience is responding to; perhaps the reduction in time-shifting basically means, “If you give me something worth watching it, I’m more likely to watch it when you air it.”

With a blog that’s so heavily dominated by print-to-internet trends, why do I think this is worth noting?

Because it points out a huge difference between what’s happening in print media vs. broadcast. Both are struggling to keep up with the change brought on by online technologies, they’re being impacted from opposite directions.

TV is losing its audience to other activities, and has had to fight and innovate to earn every viewer that it gets. Then it can turn around and sell its successes to advertisers. This is a healthy business model.

Print media, on the other hand, isn’t being pushed by its readers – who have largely made it clear that they prefer a print product. Otherwise, readers might pay for online content; and they would certainly ask for digital editions of their favorite magazines. And if that were the case, there wouldn’t be a problem. Readers would get the product they want, advertisers would know exactly how many people see and respond to their ads, and publishers would be able to cut the Three P’s that represent the largest cost of doing business: production, printing and postage.

The problem for print is that it’s being pushed by the other end: the advertisers, who demand better accountability for the impact of the money they spend. Because you can’t measure the impact of print media as simply or directly as online media, advertisers are draining their print spend in favor of an online spend. So magazines keep trying to come up with online products, and readers are yawning.

In the end, the trouble for print is that it’s not yet figured out how to give both the audience and advertisers what they want. And it’s responding to the advertisers first. And each time, readers yawn and the medium loses more credibility with advertisers.

That’s not a healthy business model.

Playing the Twitter shellgame

I’m not giving up on Twitter. Yet. There are still a handful of people whose Tweets are interesting and useful to me.

But it’s a stupid game.

It has nothing to do with how much you have to say or how often you say it. It has everything to do with how many people you follow. I recently attended a webcast on how to build a social network on Twitter. The basic advice: follow a lot of people and they’ll follow you back. And if they don’t follow you back, unfollow them.

The rest of the session was inside ball: what rules Twitter uses to prevent such inanity and how to get around them (wait 24 hours before unfollowing anyone); how to identify non-followers quickly using Twitter’s minimalist interface (if you don’t have a direct-message option next to their name, they aren’t following you); and which tools you can use (Hummingbird, $197.00) to automatically follow people and then unfollow them if they fail to reciprocate.

By using this advice (not the software; just the advice) I  tripled the number of people following me (from about 100 people after 4 months of thoughtful tweeting to 300 people after another day and just one tweet). Time spent in the effort: 15 minutes.

The etiquette at Twitter is simple: Someone follows you, you follow them back. And vice versa.

How this does anyone any good is beyond me; it assures that you have an audience of people who don’t give a wit about anything you have to say. And vice versa.

To prove the point, I just got a follow from someone whose list of followers and followees at this moment is in the range of 34,000. She has 14 tweets since May (4 months).

Fourteen? Really? That’s 1,960 characters, which isn’t even a respectable dependent clause to William Faulkner. That’s like 17 followers per word. If Jesus had a ratio like that, would Islam even exist?

When in history have so many people lined up to listen to so many people with so little to say?

In a world of SEO, does content matter?

Well, yes. If you have bad content then it doesn’t matter how many people come to see it. Consider this visual from Mark Smiciklas.

From Intersectionconsulting.com
From Intersectionconsulting.com

Wait, it’s worse than that. If you have bad content, then the more people who see it, the worse off you are. Because now you’re simply broadcasting the fact that you suck.

I would argue you’re better off with great content that only a few people see — because at least those few people will have good things to say about you.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in a magazine that was all about business-to-business commerce. Our readers were intently trying to build e-commerce platforms that would increase the velocity of their business; our advertisers were trying to sell them 7-figure solutions to do so. But the discipline was in its frontier days, and much of what they were doing was first-generation inadequate.

The problem wasn’t that the e-commerce systems failed. It’s that everything else was built for a slower world. Warehouses weren’t organized well enough to handle the high-speed demands of e-commerce. Inventory wasn’t well-enough planned to keep fast-moving items in stock. Shipping contracts didn’t include the kind of pick-up and delivery guarantees that e-commerce requires.

Companies could take the orders with lightning speed, but then the old, slow processes took over.

Which resulted in what became known (at least in my own head) as Rosenbaum’s Law: Enabling e-commerce at a company with bad processes merely makes those bad processes apparent at a much higher speed to a much larger number of people.

The point: Make sure you have something intelligent and/or compelling to say.

Then communicate it.

Then — and only then — promote the heck out of it.

A new perspective on the media meltdown

I’ve spent a lot of time describing why advertising and traditional media are on a downward curve. To be sure, the curve has been exaggerated this year by the recession. But it was exaggerated by the last recession too and there’s no doubt that traditional sponsor-based media models are like the classic rollercoaster: in between the highs and lows, the ongoing trend is down.

seth-godin-blogIn a recent blog post, marketing guru Seth Godin puts his own take on the trend. The issue in his mind is that there is a sudden attention surplus — too many people spending so much time looking for all kinds of information that marketers don’t know what to do about it. He calls these micromarkets and says the old media models couldn’t serve them; social media marketing does — though he doesn’t use that terminology

Godin and I come at this from different ends of the business, and in the end reach the same conclusions.

I’m coming at it from the perspective of the media business, where decisions are based on the requirements of the paying customer — the advertiser.

I’m not claiming the audience is ignored; I don’t believe that for a second. But the changes that we’re seeing in old-line businesses — magazines rushing to digital-only editions, newspapers trying to figure out how to charge for online content, etc. — are not at all driven by the opinions of audience. They’re driven by the spending desires of advertisers.

Godin’s perspective is consumer based: He’s observing what the audience wants — and notes the challenge for marketers who are on their way toward getting it.

His explanation strikes me as novel, true, and worth sharing: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/08/the-massive-attention-surplus.html.