Pay for news? It’s

just not worth itBy: King Kaufman

Presented by: Tarek Abou Arbid

“Almost all news organizations will be changing for content within a year”

- Lionel Barber, Financial time editor

Top-notch—not occasionally, but

consistently

Really stand outInform,

entertain, enlighten

Provide a real service

It's just too easy for readers to look elsewhere—especially if you stick a pay wall

in front of them

Think newspapers are full of unique content

Most newspapers have been relentlessly mediocre, for the most part, for years or even decades.

It's hard to justify asking people to pay for a product that's not nearly as good as it was a couple of years ago, and may not have been that good to begin with

Want Proof

The current print formula of raising newsstand and subscription price while reducing the quality of the product is having a quite predictable effect on circulation. Readers can tell the difference, and they’re walking away.

If you want people to pay for something, you’ve got to give them a good product at a price they’re

willing to pay

iTunes

The sad fact about “almost all news organizations” is that they don’t provide the same kind of value

Three standards questions of quality that newspapers need to measure themselves in today's environment, online and offline:

1. Does the paper truly meet the needs of its community?

2. Is the paper truly willing to innovate to meet community desires and requirements for new products and coverage?

3. Is the paper’s management and staff truly willing to fundamentally change what it’s doing, at every level of its operation, to adapt to the new realities of the business?

Newspaper Web sites aren't really very good—they're still (mediocre) newspapers pasted on a screen

clunky

text-heavyunimaginative

hard to navigate

People look to aggregators

Google is doing the valuable work, providing something worthwhile by aggregating and

making some sense out of the massive flow of news and information

In conclusion, news organizations may charge readers for access- But readers won’t pay, at least not in anything resembling sufficient numbers. Not

unless they see significant quality and value.

Weisbein, J. (2010), “Newspapers Have Alternatives to the Paywall, But Will They Explore Them?” accessed 13

September 2010, <http://www.besttechie.net/2010/07/20/newspapers-alternatives-paywall/>

Potts, M. (2010), “Journalism Online in Lancaster: Dead on Arrival?” accessed 13 September 2010,

<http://recoveringjounalist.typepad.com/>

Potts, M. (2009), “You Can't Charge For Something That Doesn't Provide Value”, accessed 13 September 2010, <http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2009/07/you-cant-charge-for-something-that-doesnt-provide-value.html>Kaufman, K. (2009), “The pay walls are coming!” accessed 13 September 2010, <http://open.salon.com/blog/future_of_journalism/2009/07/16/the_pay_walls_are_coming> Kaufman, K. (2009), “Gawker steps up as GQ cowers” accessed 13 September 2010, <http://open.salon.com/blog/future_of_journalism/2009/09/04/gawker_steps_up_as_gq_cowers> Kaufman, K. (2009), “Google to publishers: Are you crazy?” accessed 13 September 2010, <http://open.salon.com/blog/future_of_journalism/2009/07/15/google_to_publishers_are_you_crazy>Seward, Z. (2009), “Niche outlets replace newspapers in Washington”, Nieman Journalism Lab, Harvard

University, accessed 13 September 2010, <http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/07/niche-outlets-replace-

newspapers-in-washington/>

Potts, M. (2009), “You Can't Charge For Something That Doesn't Provide Value”, accessed 13 September 2010, <http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2009/07/you-cant-charge-for-something-that-doesnt-provide-value.html>

RELEVANT MATERIALS