TheWayoftheWeb

The digital convergence of media, entertainment, marketing and PR

TheWayoftheWeb header image 2

Why newspapers will need 1000 true fans…

September 21st, 2009 · View Comments

Newspapers will need to focus on their ‘1000 true fans’ when they switch on paywalls, judging by a survey released today by Paid Content UK and Harris.

The survey has appeared in response to plans by Rupert Murdoch and others to start putting news content behind a paywall, and reveals that if their favourite news site started charging, 3/4 of people claim they’d find another free site – only 5% would pay to continue reading.

And ironically, it’s younger readers who are more likely to cough up some cash than the older users – the 35-44-year-olds are the ones most likely to go elsewhere- although the middle class readers are most likely to pay.

Now that doesn’t have to be bad news for newspapers, if they can provide something that is worth subscription payments which make up for the lost readership.

The problem, as identified by Matt Thompson at Nieman Reports, and covered by Karthika Muthukumaraswamy at Online Journalism Blog (OJB), is that the majority of online news lacks in depth and detail what it gains in ‘24/7 access, real-time updates, increased transparency, and multiperspectival discussions’

In fact ‘The home page of almost every popular news site looks like a commercial for news stories other than the one you’re reading’.

The problem isn’t the internet itself, which is what the OJB article ends with – Thompson uses the example of Wikipedia to form great long form articles and stories, whilst Muthukumaraswamy picks out the New York Times, CNN, the BBC and The Guardian as examples of news orgs producing great standalone features.

The problem is one of perception by news teams.

The online format has always been taught as following the ‘hard news’ example – get the story across as quickly and in as few words as possible. People don’t have the time or patience to read more online, so hit them with hundreds of brief news items and they’ll flit about like a moth in a well-lit kitchen. The same thing we’ve seen advised for blogs, online video, and has been supported by the rise of microblogging.

But that’s wrong – as you can see by the success of full-length novels on mobile phones in Japan, for example.

Many, many people are now accessing the web by an ever-increasing number of devices, and as the digital familiarity has increased, we’re looking for increasingly different things.

Meanwhile newspapers heading behind the paywall will have to flip their editorial approach as quickly as they flip their business model. They’ll need to provide depth, detail and context to justify payment, using editorial teams which have been cut back more and more to try and survive on display advertising. And I haven’t seen a huge number of Murdoch titles hiring staff, for example. In fact, it appears to be AOL that’s hiring! (1500 writers is a clear indication of intent).

The paywall model will be doomed for exactly the same reason that most display-ad model newspaper sites were doomed – a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of online journalism. Almost 10 years ago I saw a competitor site switch to a paywall model and heard many people ask how they could survive – and at the same time those people were imagining a world in which the print news team would seamlessly move across to an all-conquering website.

Meanwhile hundreds of blogs and websites were springing up on a daily basis by starting small and experimenting their way into growth and editorial staff – the exact opposite of businesses which closed small-scale publications and dismissed any launches which didn’t look likely to drive an immediate huge audience with a corresponding need for staff and resources.

A handful of news organisations will make it through the next few years, whether by spreading themselves far and wide, or by engaging totally with their 1000 true fans to the degree that they can secure repeated subscriptions. Any that don’t commit fully to one of these directions, and achieve it to their maximum potential, are going to fail to crawl out of the swamp and evolve digital legs.

Tags: Digital Publishing

  • http://blog.michaelleis.com mleis

    This feels so much like the niche-ing of major market radio here in the states in the early-mid 90's. On one side of the scale you had alternative stations (WHFS baltimore) riding grunge and independent acts blasting out of the college circuit and into mainstream consciousness, cutting into the profits of conglomerate-owned rock and classic rock stations. On the other end were dance/electronica stations like 104.5 in NYC eating top 40's lunch. People, including me, thought this was the end of corporate radio, that the dial would become even more splintered.

    Of course this didn't happen. Major holding companies simply bought (and in many cases overpaid) for these smaller stations, and either diluted them, folded them into a station with a similar platform, or both.

    Newspapers face a different, but still familiar problem. The fact remains that no one else does the hard work of journalism, regardless of their readership. They will start throwing paywalls — but hopefully they won't be just about the content, but how convenient that content is to the audience. It's what I call “losing sight of the honor box.”

    Why don't newspapers make us all go to the printing plant and pick up our papers there? Why do they subsidize newsstands, honor boxes, and home delivery? Because over the last few hundred years, they've come to realize how important convenience is to our news consumption.

    Maybe I shouldn't have to pay for the physical paper, but I should have to pay when it comes time to share articles, or get them on my iPhone or Kindle. Those are the delivery options that will drive revenue next, and the news orgs need to more fully fund their development and monetization. Otherwise, they're just trying to get me to consume a product with the least amount of value to my daily life.

  • http://twitter.com/grahunt Graham Hunt

    So you reckon a thousand is enough or is that just the Seth Godin phrase? Excellent sites like the Guardian that require a lot of upkeep will need how many to break even or even actually make a profit?
    I agree totally with the comment by @mleis money will come from the convenience factor an using things like the App store to deliver the content as the consumer wants it.

  • http://angusfarquhar.tv Angus Farquhar

    If media starts adding more in depth content to their sites behind a pay wall then doesn't that just become another method of consuming the traditional media product?
    Couldn't there be a two pronged solution with the existing short 'hard news' style articles being given away for free then for the 1000 fans there is the full length articles that could almost be an exact replication of what is printed or broadcast but in a much more useful indexable media.
    One of the key driving factors to websites moving to bite-sized content was the need to not cannibalise the 'core' product, but if the full length content is pulling in as much revenue as the print/broadcast element then that is no longer a problem. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
    Here at Which? (http://www.which.co.uk) we have a similar model. Our core, indepth, lab tested reviews are behind a paywall, while our lighter stuff (news, first looks, advice) is all out there free of charge to entice people in and convince them that it is worth stumping up the cash for the hardcore research.
    And it works, (revenue was up this year) you just have to make sure that the core thing you are selling is valuable enough to keep people onboard and you have a big enough team of people looking at retentions rather than just take the money and run.

  • davidcushman

    Has anyone done the maths on how much it would have to cost per user to sustain a quality news org with much reduced ad revenues (cos they won't have the scale of eyeballs anymore).
    My gut feeling is there is a huge gap here.
    And there is the continued assumption that those serving up content behind the paywall are more expert at delivering relevant stuff to people than those beyond the silo. That's an assumption that has been proved false every time it's been measured in my experience.

    Oddly enough, I blogged about what is required of trad media to survive only today too – let me know your thoughts: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/lesson...

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Cheers Dave – the sweet spot is somewhere between the Gawker blog type set-up, and the teams that news organisations currently have – but I don't think many people have experimented to find it and it's not a one-size fits all.

    The big mistake for me was not cutting a few people loose a few years ago to start their own projects and see what would build up to generate profits – and then seeing which ones could be expanded, and which ones were merely profitable…

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hey Gus – I think the freemium model you describe is workable, and seperates the valuable niche content of a site from the freely available quick-fire stuff for people to choose between.

    One problem with hiding everything will be that Google can't see it – newspapers won't have to worry about Google stealing everything from them as they won't get indexed for all of that lovely content!

    Totally agree that Which? is a nice example, and that it's completely about retentions rather than the instant hit of big ad deals without any sustainable business model.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hi Graham, thanks for the comment – it's originally a Kevin Kelly phrase (linked in the post), and the '1000' is an ever-changing figure which is different for everyone. For some people and sites it might be 1000, for some sites it might be 10,000 or 100,000.

    And it's about finding the best ways to minimise costs whilst investing in quality content production – so looking at technology to allow cost-effective publishing, audio and video etc, and using a CMS which doesn't cost the earth. I've seen sites receive 6 or 7 figure investments which didn't result in the functionality needed, just for the sake of going with a big name etc. That money could have been better spent on the editorial resource etc which would have driven the site.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    The niche of radio is definitely a good comparison – and certainly there's nothing to stop big companies hoovering up any niche content providers. The only difference is that as one gets hoovered up and diluted, 2 more will spring up in it's place, so the acquisition and dilution cycle damages both brands involved, but doesn't change the overall effect to the same degree as taking away limited frequencies and broadcast towers etc.

    Convenience is nice – look at the success of Spotify – but there has to be substance behind it. A convenient pile of rubbish won't make me part with my cash, but choosing between two options, convenience plays a huge part. And mobile epublishing and applications are definitely a route towards that, although to be successful, they need to ensure more is being offered than a simple RSS feed with a hand out begging for change. I know Mindy McAdams and Adam Westbrook, amongst others, have listed some of the great data visualisations that some newspapers have produced digitally – that's the kind of thing that provides utility I'd pay for. It's why the likes of the Financial Times or the Middle East Economic Digest have an inherent advantage for the moment, if they can provide that data in a convenient and useful way.
    The Racing Post (UK horse racing paper) is profitable for exactly that reason – new stuff is free but the archives that gambling addicts will need are paid…

  • http://flowingmotion.wordpress.com/ Jo Jordan

    This seems to be the theme of the day – what role will quality filters play in our lives?

  • http://austintries5.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/so-it-begins-future-news-models/ So it Begins…Future News Models « My Blog

    [...] that Google announced where content is packaged; however I think implementing the idea of a pay wall will not work out in the long run. Micropayments do provide convenience because it is packages for [...]

  • http://twitter.com/grahunt Graham Hunt

    So you reckon a thousand is enough or is that just the Seth Godin phrase? Excellent sites like the Guardian that require a lot of upkeep will need how many to break even or even actually make a profit?
    I agree totally with the comment by @mleis money will come from the convenience factor an using things like the App store to deliver the content as the consumer wants it.

  • http://angusfarquhar.tv Angus Farquhar

    If media starts adding more in depth content to their sites behind a pay wall then doesn't that just become another method of consuming the traditional media product?
    Couldn't there be a two pronged solution with the existing short 'hard news' style articles being given away for free then for the 1000 fans there is the full length articles that could almost be an exact replication of what is printed or broadcast but in a much more useful indexable media.
    One of the key driving factors to websites moving to bite-sized content was the need to not cannibalise the 'core' product, but if the full length content is pulling in as much revenue as the print/broadcast element then that is no longer a problem. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?
    Here at Which? (http://www.which.co.uk) we have a similar model. Our core, indepth, lab tested reviews are behind a paywall, while our lighter stuff (news, first looks, advice) is all out there free of charge to entice people in and convince them that it is worth stumping up the cash for the hardcore research.
    And it works, (revenue was up this year) you just have to make sure that the core thing you are selling is valuable enough to keep people onboard and you have a big enough team of people looking at retentions rather than just take the money and run.

  • davidcushman

    Has anyone done the maths on how much it would have to cost per user to sustain a quality news org with much reduced ad revenues (cos they won't have the scale of eyeballs anymore).
    My gut feeling is there is a huge gap here.
    And there is the continued assumption that those serving up content behind the paywall are more expert at delivering relevant stuff to people than those beyond the silo. That's an assumption that has been proved false every time it's been measured in my experience.

    Oddly enough, I blogged about what is required of trad media to survive only today too – let me know your thoughts: http://fasterfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/lesson...

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Cheers Dave – the sweet spot is somewhere between the Gawker blog type set-up, and the teams that news organisations currently have – but I don't think many people have experimented to find it and it's not a one-size fits all.

    The big mistake for me was not cutting a few people loose a few years ago to start their own projects and see what would build up to generate profits – and then seeing which ones could be expanded, and which ones were merely profitable…

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hey Gus – I think the freemium model you describe is workable, and seperates the valuable niche content of a site from the freely available quick-fire stuff for people to choose between.

    One problem with hiding everything will be that Google can't see it – newspapers won't have to worry about Google stealing everything from them as they won't get indexed for all of that lovely content!

    Totally agree that Which? is a nice example, and that it's completely about retentions rather than the instant hit of big ad deals without any sustainable business model.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hi Graham, thanks for the comment – it's originally a Kevin Kelly phrase (linked in the post), and the '1000' is an ever-changing figure which is different for everyone. For some people and sites it might be 1000, for some sites it might be 10,000 or 100,000.

    And it's about finding the best ways to minimise costs whilst investing in quality content production – so looking at technology to allow cost-effective publishing, audio and video etc, and using a CMS which doesn't cost the earth. I've seen sites receive 6 or 7 figure investments which didn't result in the functionality needed, just for the sake of going with a big name etc. That money could have been better spent on the editorial resource etc which would have driven the site.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    The niche of radio is definitely a good comparison – and certainly there's nothing to stop big companies hoovering up any niche content providers. The only difference is that as one gets hoovered up and diluted, 2 more will spring up in it's place, so the acquisition and dilution cycle damages both brands involved, but doesn't change the overall effect to the same degree as taking away limited frequencies and broadcast towers etc.

    Convenience is nice – look at the success of Spotify – but there has to be substance behind it. A convenient pile of rubbish won't make me part with my cash, but choosing between two options, convenience plays a huge part. And mobile epublishing and applications are definitely a route towards that, although to be successful, they need to ensure more is being offered than a simple RSS feed with a hand out begging for change. I know Mindy McAdams and Adam Westbrook, amongst others, have listed some of the great data visualisations that some newspapers have produced digitally – that's the kind of thing that provides utility I'd pay for. It's why the likes of the Financial Times or the Middle East Economic Digest have an inherent advantage for the moment, if they can provide that data in a convenient and useful way.
    The Racing Post (UK horse racing paper) is profitable for exactly that reason – new stuff is free but the archives that gambling addicts will need are paid…

  • http://flowingmotion.wordpress.com/ Jo Jordan

    This seems to be the theme of the day – what role will quality filters play in our lives?

  • http://chrisdeary.com/?p=976 Footprints (23.09.09) | Chris Deary

    [...] Why newspapers will need 1000 true fans… [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus