Paywall: way to go or publisher’s pipedream?

The apparently slow demise of print publications and the downward trend of online advertising revenue is making more publishers and content providers think seriously about introducing so-called ‘paywalls’ – where original content and information is available only to paying readers.

Picture credit: Aubrey Arenas

Picture credit: Aubrey Arenas

I have been watching this for some time now and wonder if this really is the way to go, or is it just a publisher’s pipedream?

Of course the paywall is not a new phenomenon, from the early days of the popular wave of web adoption, content providers have often sought [paid-for] subscription services.

But the vast majority of publishers succombed, sooner or later, to the free model.

future for valuable content – free, premium or freemium?

A smaller number have adopted the so-called ‘freemium’ model, whereby a certain amount of free information is displayed outside the paywall and the premium content is available, at a price, to subscribers – either on regular subscription or for a once-only payment.

Whether the future publishing business model is premium or freemium, the fundamental question remains: will people really pay for online content, in a world where free information has become the norm?

Irrespective of our chosen walk of life, most of us do need to make a living so I can understand the publishers’ dilemma: how to stay in business with falling advertising revenues and unsustainable (for the time being at least) print media?

gone to the great pulping grounds in the sky

For some long-established publications, the end has already arrived – for example the magazine Personal Computer World (established 1978) has recently gone to the great pulping grounds in the sky. Many moons ago, I bought this (and others) each month. Not a big deal for the publishers – their real revenue always came from advertising, not the purchasers.

I am part of the problem

But over the past five years I have almost completely stopped buying any magazines at all, the exception is Private Eye which I still buy because I want to support their work – and I enjoy the cartoons. So my own habits are part of the downfall for traditional publishing.

market forces

Nevertheless it is plain that the old print paradigm is evolving, a painful process for many – but a necessary process for all. The status quo ante is no longer an option, the worldwide web is a reality. And the semantic web is not that far away so publishers and content providers need to take a long-hard look at their future business models and decide how they are going to survive.

I believe that the market for information will resolve the issue for many players, the survivors will be those who are perceptive [and agile enough] to change. And still make a living in the process. But we are at the crossroads now.

at the turning point

To help me understand the prevailing winds, as an online publisher I have three questions to ask you as an information consumer:

  1. Do you already pay for online magazine content?
  2. If not, what would persuade you to pay for online magazine content?
  3. What’s a fair price for a subscription?

Please note that these are genuine questions, not a disguised marketing ploy – I don’t think anyone would ever pay for reading this blog :-)

You may also like to read:

  • http://www.sba.co.im Steve Burrows

    Hi Colin,

    1) No, I don’t pay for any online content.
    2) To get me to pay would require compelling, authoritative information that I couldn’t get elsewhere for nowt.
    3) Price has to depend on perceived value. What’s the model – annual subscription, one off payment for a specific article / resource? What’s the likely readership volume? An Analysis of the Commercial Laundry Equipment market in the UK is likely to have maybe 25 readers, but they might be prepared to pay £1000 each. Equally, if I were a reader of the FT I would consider their subscription model reasonable value.

    Would I take an online subscription to a journal? Probably not if there is a paper alternative available. Paper is a much better user interface for browsing / grazing. Online is much better for searching. Browsing is appropriate to a journal, searching is about a quest for specific information. Document presentation technologies will have to advance significantly before I will be able to enjoy browsing online more than paper.

    Cheers, Steve

  • http://www.chrisism.com Chris Casey

    I agree with Steve to a point, however I have paid “subscriptions” for some sites. However it was only sites where I have garnered a great value, and only subscribed to help support the effort. Notably, http://www.howtoforge.com was one of them. Yes the info was available elsewhere, but the owner goes through great efforts, and I considered the “fee” a tip. For the fee the site gives you print abilities without the inline ads and priority in the forums.

    What Steve hit on about browsing versus searching is something that I don’t think the online business model has discovered how to exploit yet. Content providers want to draw you in via search, but then try to hit you up for money before you get the info. This sends you back to the search page to find a free reference, and the business model then tries to adapt with ad revenue mixed in with content.

    The problem being run into is the consumer desire to access information quickly and freely, versus the providers desire to capitalize on the information provided. I’ve tried to explain this to my co-workers to no avail time and time again. Where specialty information exists with very high quality, a premium can be charged, but volume is very low. Where general information, that is more easily discovered, is available, you will find a high volume, but almost no premium can be charged. By general information, I’m talking about things like news, or “how to” info, as opposed to targeted market research.

    So what is the play? Ad revenue, or statistical gathering that can be sold off to market researchers, or selling the market research directly to the few seeking your offering? Personally, I think a viable online program would likely include all of these, as well as a concerted effort to direct the audience to a traditional business service provider. For instance, consulting company A contributes white papers to a site concerned with their industry (that they happen to own), they try to get ad revenue for what its worth, they track statistical information that is available from search and site visits etc that they can then generate into profitable market research for sale, all the while, using the seemingly “third party” site to get their consulting name out there as a credible source of information, which ultimately leads customers back to their brick and mortar establishment.

    How are the news organizations going to make money online? They will have to use the news as a “freebie” loss leader to get you into the site in order to sell you something, or capture info that they can then sell.

    That’s how I see it, at least until draconian controls are dictated by the government “for our own good”.

  • http://www.gandanet.com.hk/ Roy Grubb

    I think the issue of most concern should be the survival of real journalists. Solid investigative journalism needs to be financed and have a supporting infrastructure. Long-established and respected newspapers who support those needs are regularly going under, and without a source of income from on-line subscribers and advertising, this seems likely to continue. The income from on-line ads seems uncertain, after a recent review of blogs showed that even popular blogs with half a million readers may make very little.

    So either someone will come up with a compelling reason to subscribe, or in a few years we shall look back with nostalgia at a time when the serious members of the fifth estate could bring down politicians, and maybe even governments, by their revelations of activities that the politicos want to keep hidden.

    Bloggers can do little in comparison.

    In China, where the rule of law is sketchy and newspapers are told what they may and may not write, we now see a kind of web-mob activity. This is sometimes effective in exposing corrupt officials, but more often comes close to vigilantism and usually ends up being slapped down. There are few people with the experience needed to persue an investigative line. How could there be?

    The future in the free world is unlikely to be quite the same when the serious newspapers have all gone, but I believe it gives us some hints.

    PC Magazine just went paperless. I cancelled my subscription because I can, and do, get the same information on-line, but what I wanted was something I could read easily while travelling (irrespective of 3G or WiFi signal), write on and rip up.

    I fear there’s going to be a consequence to the widespread expectation of free information, and we’re not going to like it. Still, I’m making the most of it while it is still good and hoping for the best.

    Roy Grubb
    G&A Management Consultants Ltd.
    Hong Kong

  • chris casey

    I don’t disagree that someone who is paid to investigate full time will generate necessary results, but as far as financial backing goes, it seems that with funding comes agenda. How else to you explain the one sided nature of newspapers. As for the PC Magazine, well I quit reading that one because they quit offering unbiased articles. It seemed their articles were nothing but shills for their advertisers.

    I think a business model will shake out, just not how we currently expect. TVs will soon ship Internet ready, and there will e evitably be “channels” that provide interactive print media alternatives that surpass current cable news chanels for searchability and lower cost, but beat the current news web sites in production quality. . The cost for which will be folded into your cable of satelite bill.

  • Chris Casey

    Funny thing, this article came to my inbox a few hours after I made the previous post.

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&tag=nl.e539