on 8 June 2009So the Sunday Times is the latest paper thinking seriously about charging for its online edition. I’m sceptical about paid online content – most people seem to feel the natural order of things is that print costs money and online doesn’t, and changing the way people feel about the natural order of things is an uphill struggle at the best of times – but it’s tempting to think there might be an opportunity if all the major news providers jump at the same time, right now, before quality follows revenues down to a point where nobody will stump up cash for it in any medium.
The Wall Street Journal is often cited as the standard bearer of newspaper pay sites, but I don’t think it’s a great example. (Jeff Jarvis just cancelled, for a start.) The WSJ is essentially a niche B2B product, and was charging a hefty fee; whether that’ll work or not has little relevance to mass market daily papers going paid-for. Though it runs lots of analysis, as opposed to less distinctive fast news, its partisan and somewhat archaic world view is bound to limit its potential audience. Outside its target audience of conservative American money men, it can be all but unintelligible.
In some ways, the Sunday Times is an ideal candidate for mainstream paid content. It doesn’t contain much news that would be easy to find free elsewhere, so readers might be prepared to stump up to keep reading it. But it’s a highly tactile product, legendarily huge and traditionally enjoyed over a lazy morning with coffee and croissants. The web will never replicate that experience, and I doubt Kindle and its ilk can either. The Sunday Times proposition as we know it is unique to print.
The Guardian’s owners say they have no plans to charge, but could they? It has, I think, the best newspaper website in the world, and I’d miss it enough to pay for it. But many of its readers would resent losing free access precisely because it’s a product that feels more like an essential than a luxury; and they’d have a stick with which to beat the owners in the shape of the public service ethos laid down by the Scott Trust. At best, the price would have to be set very carefully to avoid a revolt.
More importantly, having one of the UK’s most popular websites has undoubtedly broadened the Guardian’s audience and influence. Put it behind a fence and that effect is immediately lost.
For that reason if no other, I think free content funded by advertising still looks like the best model for serious journalism. Whether it’s one that can be sustained is another question.
adambanksdotcom @allpointsnorth wibble