The end of free news?
News International proprietor Rupert Murdoch has signalled his intention to end the era of free content on the internet. He has not yet announced how he will do this, but it is likely that his newspaper websites will be introducing some sort of charges in the next year. This means The Sun, Times, Sunday Times and News of the World in the UK as well as his newspapers in Australia and the US.
Impact on advertising
Some commentators clearly believe this is doomed to failure. The argument is that by charging for content, that content will have fewer eyeballs and thus advertisers will pay less. Others believe that people are so accustomed to being able to read everything for free that they simply won’t pay. We have a generation for whom news has been free on the internet for a decade.
News has a value
But Murdoch clearly believes this is unsustainable. He believes news has a value, and that he can make people pay for it again. Can he pull it off?
I’m prepared to go against the crowd and say he can. I don’t think he can do it on his own, but all it takes is a few other publishing companies to follow and the balance is tipped.
UK national newspapers
Let’s look at the UK market. Discounting the Star, Express and Independent (which I believe probably won’t be here in ten years’ time), there are seven national daily newspapers in the UK. Of these, two – The Sun and The Times – are owned by News International. A third – The Financial Times – is something of a special case and already successfully charges for content. That leaves The Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Daily Mail.
Free content at Guardian.co.uk
Of these, I suspect only the Guardian has a genuine commitment to free content on the internet. This is partly because the Guardian was a trailblazer in newspaper websites, partly because Guardian.co.uk gets a lot of advertising, and partly because many of Guardian.co.uk’s readers are not in the UK. The foreign online readership boosts the print version’s gravitas and ability to set agendas.
Mirror, Mail and Telegraph
The Mirror’s commitment to the internet has always been half-hearted at best. Mirror.co.uk is not a major player, and if the tide turned against free content it would almost certainly follow. The site would attract very few subscribers, but it would be more a case of making what money it can. I can also imagine that the Mail and, to a slightly lesser extent, The Telegraph, would dearly love to erect pay walls. If they could make money by charging, they almost certainly would.
Paid content domino effect
So if the FT, The Sun and The Times are charging, it probably only takes one other media group to follow suit before a domino effect kicks in. And will people go to the Guardian website because they can’t read the Times, Telegraph or Mail online without paying? I’m not so sure – these are largely different audiences.
Why buy Kellogg’s cornflakes?
I think supermarket own brand goods make for a reasonable analogy. Why would someone pay £2 plus for Kellogg’s cornflakes when the supermarket own brand cornflakes are available for half the price? Answer: because they prefer the Kellogg’s brand and are prepared to pay the extra for it.
Newspapers must play to their strengths
That brand is the key thing. The newspapers have to concentrate on what makes their paper a must-read; what only they do well. This might be breaking exclusive stories, in-depth analysis, coverage of niche topics or big name interviews. It doesn’t matter what it is, but these strengths are why people choose one paper over another. And, I believe, it is what people will pay for.
Paywalls and unique content
Any newspaper site putting an entire site behind a paywall is almost certainly doomed to failure. For a start, search engine traffic will drastically decrease, leading to haemorrhaging advertising revenue. General news can always be obtained from elsewhere; same with most sports coverage; same – to a certain extent – with opinion. The happy mix is to make the general content free, and the unique content paid-for. That unique content just has to be very good. Almost certainly better than it is now.
Website subscriptions
I don’t think people will pay a lot. But give the internet site subscription away with the newspaper subscription? That’s a workable model. Or publish a daily access code in the print edition. Or charge, say, £30 – £50 a year for a website subscription allowing access to all content and the archive. That can work too.
I’m not sure the advertising would drop off that much either – most of the traffic would be coming to the free content, and the advertising in the paid-for content would have a higher per-reader value. If someone has paid for it, they’ve clearly got a higher interest in what they are reading than the average punter.
Changing a culture
Making paid content work does involve changing what is fast becoming an ingrained culture. But this isn’t as difficult as some might think. It happens all the time.
In the past, drink driving, leaving doors unlocked, taking more than one bag as hand luggage, not recycling, watching sport on terrestrial TV and parking for free were all largely ingrained parts of the culture. They all changed, and it’s arguable in every case that the past status quo was more convenient and preferred by many.
Yes, a large sector of the population have grown accustomed to free news. But I think it’ll be surprisingly easy to train people out of that if there are fewer sources of free news. Crucially, if people will pay to access the internet (through service providers, in internet cafés or wireless hotspots), who’s to say they won’t pay to access the content on it?
What do you think? Am I being naive here? Share your thoughts by commenting below.
Tags: Financial Times, Guardian, Mail, media, Mirror, Murdoch, paid content, Sun, Telegraph, Times
Well researched and interesting thoughts.
I`ve already given up paying up to £1 daily for a newspaper. The move is simply to cut costs, so I won`t be paying to read news on the internet..
I`m even considering dropping my TV licence due to too much crap.
I listen to the BBC World Service several times a day and for a full evening bulletin, and listener comments, to World Have Your Say.
That is not to say I don`t buy at least a copy of the Guardian, the Independent, or the FT at the weekend.
But unless I live in the Australian Outback, I won`t be paying to eyeball anything on-line.
Interesting post – thanks David. I think you may be right – but bear in mind that all those examples you give about ingrained habits being changed only came about because of massive public information campaigns. Think of the hundreds of millions of pounds poured into drink-driving campaigns over the last 30 years or so – and then look at how many people STILL think it doesn’t apply to them. News Int may well be able to change the habits of a decade (or, for the under-30s, a lifetime), but probably only at the cost of immense sums in advertising and PR. Can they afford it?
I would probably pay £10-15 a month for unlimited access to one UK newspaper site, but I doubt I would pay more – and I wouldn’t pay that 4 or 5 times over to get a range of opinion. And I think I’m the exception. Moreover, I would only do it if I could be guaranteed ad-free browsing (or at least drastically reduced advertising onsite). Ads are BY FAR the worst thing about the internet. I’m already willing to pay my licence fee twice over to guarantee ad-free BBC TV & radio and I’m already paying for Sky+ in order to timeshift all my TV and so fast-forward through every ad break, so if someone – even Murdoch – can come up with a way to strip unwanted flashing/flickering/pain in the backside ads off my screen then I’m in.
Hi David – I disagree but think your points are well-made — and you know ‘British’ media much better than I.
I posted your link on the google group Travel Writers (http://groups.google.com/group/travelguidewriters) for discussion.
Best, Molly
Of course it all begs the question, if they do find a way to make it pay will they start paying their travel writers a livable amount of money to provide that online content. Or will the status quo continue and it’ll just be expected to be given away when you write an article for the print version.
I would pay for certain sites that give unique quality content that I read regularly and value – the Guardian site, and the Age site here in Melbourne spring to mind.
I’d consider an annual fee but I’d be just as happy with micropayments, paying a small amount per article via some clever method where I get billed later.
I do hope some sort of paid model works eventually, because quality journalism ain’t cheap to fund and those Google Ads aren’t producing anywhere near enough revenue to fund it. If no-one pays, then eventually all the news sources die (other than government broadcasters like the BBC), and we’re all the poorer for it.
[...] could be forgiven for thinking that yesterday’s post on Rupert Murdoch’s plans to end the era of free news had nothing to do with travel. It’s a fair cop. But I also think it has implications for travel [...]
Small point, Tim (but a big one, IYSWIM) – the BBC is emphatically not a ‘government broadcaster’. It has evolved a unique method of funding – effectively a tax on televisions – but it remains an independent body that is frequently critical (HIGHLY critical) of the UK government, the monarchy, other institutions of the British state and perceived ‘British interests’ in foreign policy. It is also frequently supportive of them. That is its strength, rooted in the licence fee system: it is uniquely well placed to represent all sides in any debate.
Don’t make the mistake of supposing the BBC to be in the same mould as state-owned broadcasters in the Middle East or elsewhere – merely a mouthpiece for the ruling party, or for the establishment. It is not. The BBC is ‘owned’ by the people who fund it – that is, the British population. There is no other national or international media organisation like it in the world. Its benefits to Britain and to the world at large are incalculable, and it is worth paying to support.
(A touch bombastic, I know, sorry… there aren’t many things I feel this strongly about…)
Thanks for the lecture Matthew, but I know how the BBC works and we have a similar model in Australia in the ABC. I wasn’t implying it was a government mouthpiece. However, I should perhaps have said ‘publicly-owned broadcaster’ or ‘publicly-funded broadcaster’.
Hmm, now I sound a bit grumpy. Problem with Internet forums, too easy to shoot off at the mouth. Apologies for the aggro, Matthew! And thanks for the interesting topic Dave, something we’re all wrestling with.
Thanks for all the responses, guys.
@christine – But would you pay to read news online if there wasn’t sufficient good, trustworthy content for free?
@matthew – Not sure News Int alone would have to put up for a massive PR campaign. As I say, there’s a certain tipping point where more outlets are not providing news for free, and that forces the public hand somewhat.
Not sure I agree on the ads – I find they’re not too intrusive on websites and are something of a necessary evil. I also know that without the advertising industry, I wouldn’t have a job. Travel writing is utterly reliant on advertising (bar the odd guide book).
@paul – I doubt it’ll make any difference to the lives of travel writers. As I argue in another post, trying to charge for online travel content is madness.
@tim and matthew – re. BBC. I have to declare an interest in that my girlfriend works for the BBC, but I am still a massive fan of it and would gladly pay double my licence fee even though I don’t watch much TV. But I can also see how newspaper websites struggle against the BBC site. The secret is to provide what is beyond the BBC remit.