Should all news organizations start charging for online content?

A very wise (and, strangely, important) person in the news industry said to me the other day: "Do you know ANYONE who has ever clicked on an online ad?"

I had to confess I knew many who clicked on those little Google thingies, but not many who clicked on display ads. And even fewer who would admit to it.

This led us to consider how news organizations might make more (some) money in the future, given that untold riches are not exactly flowing yet from online display advertising.

So imagine if all the (supposedly) reputable news organizations got together one night, in a dark room owned by Rupert Murdoch and decided that they would all start charging for their online content. Not just one or two of them. All of them.

No more linking by the Drudge Report without a fee. No more getting up in the morning to read the election latest online before you put on your lucky underwear, without, at the very least, a subscription.

Of course it's true that, in times gone by, these same news organizations had little clue how the Web would develop. They believed in unlimited free sampling of their product online, in the interesting belief this wouldn't devalue the one thing they had to offer.

Some organizations did try charging (a few, like The Wall Street Journal, still do) and then backed away like Alaskan moose when faced with an armed news crew.

But it used to be free to park on many Main Streets in America. Then they put in parking meters and, though we might show McCainish grouchiness on occasion, we pay. Could it still be the same with online news?

(Credit: CC Sillygwailo)

Where, in fact, does the thing we call "news" come from anyway? Don't we imagine that somewhere out there are paid journalists of some repute, battling past press releases, spin surgeons, and proprietorial prejudice in order to sniff out something akin to truths and bring them to their readers?

If, at noon tomorrow, all news organizations announced they would immediately start charging for their hard-earned and, presumably, valuable online product (I'm imagining Rupert Murdoch and The New York Times' Arthur Sulzberger making a joint statement, their arms linked in solidarity, each reading every second word of their pronouncement), would people refuse to pay?

Yes, there would still be competition from new free sites, financed solely by advertising. But these would have to be new brands. Would people trust them? Remember, I am talking about every single news organization coming together and sticking to a joint principle. (Yes, I know, I know. Please dream with me, won't you?)

Given that times are now a-changing and we are all a-working together to blunt the parts of capitalism that the finest algorithms failed to anticipate, might some readers hope that by paying for news they might just get a product of slightly better quality?

What if the proprietors suddenly grasped the times they were living in, clutched the concept of truth like a man rolling off a cliff grabs at a dried-up branch, and shared a little of their business model with their readers?

What if they then promised their readers that for, say, a $25 subscription (yes, not much more than 6 coffees or a pack of 24 condoms) they would guarantee a 25 percent expansion in online news coverage?

Might this also allow the news organizations to reverse their tendency (their need, they might say) to pepper their pages with so much display advertising that their online content sometimes looks like a teenage acne-ridden cheek?

Isn't there just the smallest, tiniest chance that readers might buy into this new commercial relationship? If the financial folks can all get together to save themselves, er, I mean, to readjust their business principles, isn't this a good time for online news organizations to do it too?

That'll be $49.99. Thank you.

[Harlan879]

Oh boy! Price fixing! Instant lawsuit!

Television ads don't require the viewer to click on anything. Brand awareness just requires a bit of attention. Internet ads work, even without clicks, if they give people familiarity with products and services. Companies that buy internet ads are paying per-click rates on the assumption that for everyone that clicks, dozens of people see the ad and are more likely to remember them in the future.

[Penguinisto]

@Harlan: TV is a bit different in that it's somewhat linear - you can't avoid the ads. The most you can do is tivo past 'em - after you've recorded them, and if you have the presence of mind to (they also present breaks in the show so that you can get up and get a snack, hit the bathroom, etc).

With websites, you can block the ads outright if you want (e.g. with Firefox and AdBlock), or train your attention to just not bother with most of 'em... without disrupting the content

Now for the fun part - nope, most folks don't click on adverts, but the smart advertisers online won't really care if you do - their goal is to get their names up there in a nice quiet non-flashing advert, where your subconscious will catch (and cache) them. The smart advertisers know that you'll remember the name later on, in relation to the website you were at (a tech site, a games site, etc.)

[techman21]

The news is mostly written by AP and parroted by all the news sites - what is there to pay for?

[joeangier]

First of all, you make it sound like "AP" is some kind of free-flowing, naturally-occurring phenomenon that everyone else is feeding off of ... and then re-selling. Second: a recent study showed that AP gets a huge amount of their material from local newspapers (many of which are now going belly-up). Third, this new meme that traditional news-gathering is obsolete because people young and old now get their news from "aggregators" is a half-baked non-insight. What are all these aggregate sites aggregating from? Answer: the news that's gathered by thousands of paid reporters working beats in cities around the world. Their numbers are dropping precipitously, as is the coverage they've been providing. Yes, there is some real reporting being done by freelance web reporters ... some of whom are even making money. But they can only make up for a small fraction of what's being lost by the rapid demise of print journalism. And don't get me started on that other idiotic assertion that goes like: "Young people today don't need the mainstream media ... They get all their news from The Daily Show." With all respect to that excellent program, I'm sure they'd be the first to admit that their material isn't coming to them from some magical cost-free ether ... but from the work of reporters who are getting paid to write the news.

[markblewis32177]

if esubscription was same as paper subscription AND epaper was laid out similar to newspaper AND there were no more ads than in newspaper AND escription had same coverage as newspaper [OK, add links to more detailed info], i'd pay for escripition. currently what's online is ridiculous & i won't pay for same calibre.
marklewis