Comments on: Why newspapers will need 1000 true fans…

By: Footprints (23.09.09) | Chris Deary

Footprints (23.09.09) | Chris Deary — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:13:49 +0000

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

By: Jo Jordan

Jo Jordan — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:35:09 +0000

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

By: Dan Thornton

Dan Thornton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:57:10 +0000

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…

By: Dan Thornton

Dan Thornton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:51:35 +0000

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.

By: Dan Thornton

Dan Thornton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:48:13 +0000

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.

By: Dan Thornton

Dan Thornton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:45:23 +0000

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…

By: davidcushman

davidcushman — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:34:55 +0000

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…

By: Angus Farquhar

Angus Farquhar — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:35 +0000

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.

By: Graham Hunt

Graham Hunt — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:12 +0000

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.

By: So it Begins…Future News Models « My Blog

So it Begins…Future News Models « My Blog — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:45:12 +0000

[...] 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 [...]