This article from the New York Times gives a pretty good overview of the debate over whether more newspapers should charge readers for online content. It explains that most newspapers had hoped to make money through advertising on their Web sites. They've since changed their minds, but are still worried that readers won't be willing to pay for something they're currently getting for free.
The article offers a solution: give the readers something extra to entice them to pay. Examples of this is the non-journalism world were bottled water, cable TV and now luggage and food on airplanes.
I thought that this was a very interesting solution and one that makes a lot of sense. I suppose it's why papers in niche markets (like The Wall Street Journal) have been able to successfully charge readers for content -- they're giving the readers something they can't get anywhere else. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, other newspapers try to do with this in the future.
On the subject of my paper, I'm having a little trouble finding information on my topic. There are plenty of newspaper articles, but few scholarly ones. Does anyone have any ideas about where I might be able to find more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your findings about the Wall Street Journal. If a news outlet gives people something they desire that they can't find elsewhere, the public will pay to get it...I think it is the same for celebrity gossip Web sites. People would pay to see what is on MediaTakeOut, TMZ and Perez Hilton. I know they get money from ad sales but they could make so much money by making people pay per picture or subscribe.
ReplyDelete