Pay for the news?

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

Here's are two interesting twists on the future of news organizations.
1. The public proposes the stories and then chips in to pay for journalists to investigate. Click here (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia8-2009feb08,0,7232169.column) to see the LA Times' James Rainey's take on Spot.us. While I can see some merit in tackling stories that otherwise might not be handled, this creates a "hired gun" persona that may affect the perception of fairness which already is in jeopardy for mainstream media.
2. Since newspapers already charge for its content in the print version, why not charge for its online version too says Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and former editor of Time magazine in a speech (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.4959311/k.49F5/A_Bold_Old_Idea_for_Saving_Journalism_2009_HaysPre ss_Enterprise_Lecture_by_Walter_Isaacson.htm) at the University of California Riverside. We've talked about this for years. McClatchey says it is looking at reviving that notion again.
Thoughts?

[Bob Jentges]

My immediate off the cuff reactions are:

1. I doubt much serious, in-depth investigation could be done for $500 to $1000. In addition, some media outlets have "tip lines" now where paid staff reporters follow-up on worthwhile tips submitted by the public.

2. I question whether a majority of news outlets would take that course. Those that did would probably lose online viewers to those that did not, therefore lose advertising dollars.

[Dan Conner]

Here's are two interesting twists on the future of news organizations.
1. The public proposes the stories and then chips in to pay for journalists to investigate. Click here (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia8-2009feb08,0,7232169.column) to see the LA Times' James Rainey's take on Spot.us. While I can see some merit in tackling stories that otherwise might not be handled, this creates a "hired gun" persona that may affect the perception of fairness which already is in jeopardy for mainstream media.
2. Since newspapers already charge for its content in the print version, why not charge for its online version too says Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and former editor of Time magazine in a speech (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.4959311/k.49F5/A_Bold_Old_Idea_for_Saving_Journalism_2009_HaysPre ss_Enterprise_Lecture_by_Walter_Isaacson.htm) at the University of California Riverside. We've talked about this for years. McClatchey says it is looking at reviving that notion again.
Thoughts?

1.) Well, chipping in to pay reporters to investigate might sound OK after a cursory look, but small subscriber print media will be hard pressed to get the public to pay enough for any reporter to investigate anything. Also, I think you run into a serious danger here of taking objectivity out of the reporters hands. The next thing you know, papers and reporters will be "playing" for the big money making investigations, but not necessarily the ones needing investigation. Unfortunately, I think our recent value system would have found a bottomless pit of money for the Monica Lewinski affair, but little for Watergate. In other words, I don't think there would be a correlation between dollars spent and the merit of the story. Our papers would be full of Anna Nicole Smith type stories, while the tough investigations into investor fraud and political corruption would languish. I don't like the public paying for paper investigations. The public is paying for a private business employee, but yet the employee is controlled by the paper? I think there are too many entanglements and it is a commercialization of a paper's public service.


2.) I think it is a good idea to charge for an online version of the paper. Frankly, I'm surprised papers haven't been charging. It seems like a strange dichotomy that papers are basically competing with themselves. They charge for print, but giving the same information online free? The young people aren't dumb. Why pay for something you can get for free? However, there might be a way to get around this and have a little of both ways here. Why not cover ground breaking national news for free, with links to other media sources, but charge for ALL the local news? That applies to sports, human interest, obituaries,and general local news. If people want to find out about local news, they need to pay. The considerable coverage of national news should be easy using links to other national news outlets, including the AP. Little editorial work would need to be done. The paper's energy could instead be plowed into the money-making local news. You could get these two to work together by creatingsuch a good one-stop national news source that you would have a larger audience from which to charge for local info.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Dan, your idea is interesting. Charge for some local news, not national. We would have to give up some audience doing this probably, and the pay model hasn't been tried in a while, but it might be a way for newspapers to generate more revenue from a different source, or more revenue from their current customers.

[Bob Jentges]

Joe, I think giving up "some audience" is a gross misunderstatement!

Those that would pay for The Free Press local news on the internet and link to national news from a different internet news source would probably cancel their subscription to the hard copy of The Free Press. Those that kept their subscription to the hard copy of The Free Press (which would include national, regional, and local news) almost certainly would not pay for local news on the internet.

Call me old fashioned if you want to, but I think the best way to sell a product is to make it easy for people to get/use it, and price it reasonably. I still like the KISS principle.

I found an interesting op-ed by Michael Kinsley about selling news by the slice in todays NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/opinion/10kinsley.html?ref?=opinion

[Dan Conner]

Dan, your idea is interesting. Charge for some local news, not national. We would have to give up some audience doing this probably, and the pay model hasn't been tried in a while, but it might be a way for newspapers to generate more revenue from a different source, or more revenue from their current customers.

You have a great luxury right now...being almost a monopoly for local news. Losing internet customers might just drive them to your print market. Either way it's a win.

[Dan Conner]

Joe, I think giving up "some audience" is a gross misunderstatement!

Those that would pay for The Free Press local news on the internet and link to national news from a different internet news source would probably cancel their subscription to the hard copy of The Free Press. Those that kept their subscription to the hard copy of The Free Press (which would include national, regional, and local news) almost certainly would not pay for local news on the internet.

Call me old fashioned if you want to, but I think the best way to sell a product is to make it easy for people to get/use it, and price it reasonably. I still like the KISS principle.

I found an interesting op-ed by Michael Kinsley about selling news by the slice in todays NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/opinion/10kinsley.html?ref?=opinion

I disagree Bob. You stated in an earlier comment, in another area, that you really like The Free Press and that you think it's great. Then why wouldn't you pay for it? Or do you only think it's good when it's free? If you want to go to a different national news outlet, that's fine, but where else would you get as comprehensive coverage of local news? What's that saying..."you wanna play, you gotta pay?"

[Bob Jentges]

Dan disagrees with me---I'm shocked! And I do pay for The Free Press. It is delivered to our house by a carrier every morning. I just do not intend to pay for it twice.

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

One thing we are doing to bridge that gap is providing only some of the daily news from the newspaper on the web. We're emphasizing breaking news throughout the day; interactive stories such as photo galleries, maps that we can't do in print, AP Video and links to some items of interest.
For those who want a complete copy of The Free Press electronically because of distance concerns or want access while away from home, it is provided free to EZPay or annual subscribers. Or people can opt to just get the E-Edition alone and pay less than the print. We can afford to do that because we aren't putting out the paper.
I'm not sure "micropayments" are the answer but giving all of our news gathering away for free is not a workable business model. I don't believe online revenue will come close to replacing print revenue needed to sustain the reporting we need to be a community newspaper.

[Dan Conner]

One thing we are doing to bridge that gap is providing only some of the daily news from the newspaper on the web. We're emphasizing breaking news throughout the day; interactive stories such as photo galleries, maps that we can't do in print, AP Video and links to some items of interest.
For those who want a complete copy of The Free Press electronically because of distance concerns or want access while away from home, it is provided free to EZPay or annual subscribers. Or people can opt to just get the E-Edition alone and pay less than the print. We can afford to do that because we aren't putting out the paper.
I'm not sure "micropayments" are the answer but giving all of our news gathering away for free is not a workable business model. I don't believe online revenue will come close to replacing print revenue needed to sustain the reporting we need to be a community newspaper.

Jim--Maybe you intend to do this, but what about showing the headlines of the local story on the web to entice people to want to read it, but charge them to see it. I know several online outlets that charge a monthly fee to view all areas of the internet outlet. Also, people are really drawn to surveys, particularly ones of current interest. Why not further entice people to participate in local news via a survey, but charge them for that.

[Dan Conner]

Dan disagrees with me---I'm shocked! And I do pay for The Free Press. It is delivered to our house by a carrier every morning. I just do not intend to pay for it twice.

Bob--

I don't think you need to pay twice. Just pay once and then read it in only that one place. Why do you want to read the same story twice?

[Bob Jentges]

I did not really understand the issue until Mr. Santori's 10:05 AM post today. Before that my concern about paying twice was being an annual subscriber to the hard copy and when out of town for a few days, paying again to get some news The Free Press published online when I did not have access to the hard copy delivered to my home.

Although the business models of Slate and The Free Press are not the same, according to Michael Kinsley who was editor of Slate when they tried the paying for news by the slice concept it did not work. Maybe The Free Press can make it work, and if they can good for them.

How The Free Press runs their business is not my concern, but how I spend my money is.

[Dan Conner]

I did not really understand the issue until Mr. Santori's 10:05 AM post today. Before that my concern about paying twice was being an annual subscriber to the hard copy and when out of town for a few days, paying again to get some news The Free Press published online when I did not have access to the hard copy delivered to my home.

Although the business models of Slate and The Free Press are not the same, according to Michael Kinsley who was editor of Slate when they tried the paying for news by the slice concept it did not work. Maybe The Free Press can make it work, and if they can good for them.

How The Free Press runs their business is not my concern, but how I spend my money is.

Hey, I agree with you here. Being profitable for The Free Press should be up to them, but as you've indicated before, if would be a shame to lose such a resource in our community. Also, i hope that The Free Press makes moves to IMPROVE the medium. If what they want is status-quo, then they lose and so do we.

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

Jim--Maybe you intend to do this, but what about showing the headlines of the local story on the web to entice people to want to read it, but charge them to see it. I know several online outlets that charge a monthly fee to view all areas of the internet outlet. Also, people are really drawn to surveys, particularly ones of current interest. Why not further entice people to participate in local news via a survey, but charge them for that.
Dan, that may be a model we pursue (or some variation of it) but whatever we decide we need to get pretty close to doing it right because it will be costly to develop and program it. We aren't a large metro with technical resources at our finger tips.
The Wall Street Journal has that model but they are uniquely positioned bringing very specialized news to a national/international audience who are very willing to pay to stay on top of news which helps their livelihood.
"MIcropayments" has been tried before and now is being brought up again by some newspapers desperate for some answers.
We are finding about 60% of our online viewers already read the newspaper which means they are trying to keep up with the news. We should be providing them with free breaking news as it unfolds. But give the more complete news in either the e-edition or the print edition for which there is a cost.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, that may be a model we pursue (or some variation of it) but whatever we decide we need to get pretty close to doing it right because it will be costly to develop and program it. We aren't a large metro with technical resources at our finger tips.
The Wall Street Journal has that model but they are uniquely positioned bringing very specialized news to a national/international audience who are very willing to pay to stay on top of news which helps their livelihood.
"MIcropayments" has been tried before and now is being brought up again by some newspapers desperate for some answers.
We are finding about 60% of our online viewers already read the newspaper which means they are trying to keep up with the news. We should be providing them with free breaking news as it unfolds. But give the more complete news in either the e-edition or the print edition for which there is a cost.

Jim--

I just read an editorial in Time, and they briefly mentioned "micropayments", but they are definitely a national magazine, which might make it different for The Free Press. I realize it would be costly to develop complicated software for a website, but what a great time to do it. There are scads of internet developers/programmers looking for work. I think they would work cheap. It might even make sense to hire them as a temporary employee instead of contracting them. I know a great web page/internet developer who might be available. Let me know. His name is Ward Tongen and he works out of the cities. You could find out how much it might cost? I think the key to this is to tickle the consumer to get them to subscribe. Your plan sounds good. I don't know about the micropayment thing, but it sounds extremely expensive in hardware for our small community.