No Money in on-line news

Martin, I don't often disagree with you but I would like to challenge your comment that "newspapers and business magazines went free on-line a number of years ago, and there is simply no way back".  That may have been true before the days of Kindle and iPad, but this new form factor, combining the traditional look and feel of a newspaper or magazine, with full online interaction with the touch of a finger and some crazy new production methods is hot (check out the video link on my blog 'Can the iPad save CSPs?'). People will pay for it.  It just may take some time to happen.  Basically, you'll get the headlines on the web, but the full blown coverage combining live TV, video and visuals by subscription. take a look at my blog to see just how fantastic the experience will become.

As for that survey you quoted from, well, it was very US centric and who has ever heard of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism?  The same august body conducted another survey that stated The internet has surpassed newspapers and radio in popularity as a news platform on a typical day and now ranks just behind TV. Maybe they should combine both surveys.

Now, Americans pay for their cable TV, which includes news coverage, and they pay for their internet access via PCs or mobile phones, they pay for their newspapers and magazines and they buy lots and lots of books. They will also get used to the idea of paying for, somehow, quality information, especially if the major publishers and news services start differentiating their services to provide premium content at a price.  Murdoch is doing it and the others will follow suit (they are all pals). They will have to. Someone has to pay for the journalists and writers and producers, etc. If they stop doing so we may not have any news to look at!

As for the click rates argument. If 80% of Americans don't click ads that means the other 20% do. To advertising people, this is a fantastic ratio.  Let's not forget Google that relies on people clicking ads, well, we know how poorly they're doing, right?

This may be of interest to both of you:

"Google developing a micropayment platform and pitching newspapers: ‘Open’ need not mean free”

www.niemanlab.org/.../google-developing-a-micropayment-platform-and-pitching-newspapers-open-need-not-mean-free

The notion of maintaining separate subscriptions for each online publication is dead in the water. However if there was a system where users could pay a couple of cents (or fractions of cents) for each story from a central virtual wallet (much like iTunes) then we might just see the attitudes of the public change.

Oh no, not Google again!

And Sam Adams is my favorite tipple in the US, thanks Martin! ;-)

I cannot agree more with Martin; the question of how to monitize new(s) services has a lot of people scratching the back of their heads. But seeing the enormous success a company like Google has with advertising, I also wonder if the survey really got the answers they were looking for. We might not like it, but online advertisements have become hard to avoid – and we’re clicking happily ever after...

The formfactor was rightly brought into the discussion by Tony. Until recently hardware almost didn’t count: software was ‘king’. Now I’m eagerly anticipating the iPad - mostly because I find my iPhone a little to small and my Macbook a bit too cumbersome for a comfortable reading experience.

I guess what it comes down to is the experience I as a customer want/perceive/have that ultimately decides the price I’m willing to pay for a certain product. That’s where the formfactor and business proposition is combined.

I believe that there is market for on-line news just as there is for any service that provides either better quality, higher speed or improved service.

In my own occupation finidng a good source of valuable and pertinent business commentary and intelligence is worth paying for. In addition I would gladly pay to avoid some of the annoying advertising that simply delays or interferes with the quality of the service I am looking for.

From a personal perspective I would pay for quality content, even when there may be free sources for poorer quality services. I recall the birth and demise of Napster, king and pioneer of free music downloading. The rhetoric was all about how free downloading would kill music. On the contrary, I believe that although the revenues for many specific artists and some of the larger labels has declined, the total revenue for the truly global music industry will have increased manyfold. Indeed, now that we are hearing from more artists than ever and we can individually pay for good quality songs rather than half an album of 'filler' I buy a lot more music.

While it's true there is a limit to what I would spend, there always was. Now I can evaluate a lot more easily my sources of business information, music, shows etc. and then make a choice about which of them is worth a subscription, or I woudl prefer without ads.