Journalists tend to move in packs. Not long ago we thought that the key to the business model of the new era was traffic. Journalism would migrate slowly from paid print content to free Web content—information wants to be free and all—and we would support our expensive newsrooms with the Internet ads that would ride in, bugles blowing, as thousands of visitors came to our sites. More recently came the realization, heightened by a savage recession, that the cavalry is inadequate.
So now what? In this cover package, we set four writers on the problem. Alissa Quart looks at the history of the free culture/free content movement and what it has wrought. Peter Osnos probes the link economy, asking what’s fair in the age of Google. David Simon, creator of The Wire, argues that what will save newsgathering is the courage to erect a paywall and take a stand behind it. And Michael Shapiro makes the case for a hybrid, a savvy mix of free and paid content that, combined with other income, could save the day—if we first rethink what we’re offering. What’s clear is that the free lunch is gone, and hard choices are waiting.
Um, ironically, I would have paid for a web subscription this very second to read the rest of this article online. The only subscription possibility I'm seeing is for the actual magazine, which usually is tossed and forgotten. Or am I missing something, which is likely?
See, I have time to read this article now, maybe not when the magazine arrives later. And why aren't journalists demanding payment for the WORK that they do? No one else gives away their blood and sweat and tears for free. I don't understand the hesitancy, and I LOVE free things on the internet. If I can support journalism, I'll pay a web-only fee. And I know there are more people out there who would do the same.
So as their livelihoods are going down in flames, why aren't the pack-moving journalists flexing their collective muscle!?!
#1 Posted by Sara, CJR on Thu 9 Jul 2009 at 11:25 AM
Good question, Sara. To explain our own situation here at CJR: we are building our own partial pay wall.
CJR will soon (sometime this fall) make all the content of the Columbia Journalism Review print magazine available online for subscribers. We will also continue to make roughly a third of the print content available to everyone (though we'll roll those stories out somewhat slowly—as we will the articles in the package described above— and they will remain available to to non-subscribers for only six months).
Our online-only content on CJR.org—from our four desks (business and finance, politics and policy, science and environment, and general media news, plus shorter stuff on The Kicker—will remain free at all times.
This fall we'll continue to harmonize our Web and print content, and you will get the best of us by reading both. We hope that you will click on the Subscribe button below and get set to receive all of CJR's journalism criticism and analysis in the coming months, not to mention help us pay for it.
the editors
To SUBSCRIBE, to give CJR as a GIFT, or to check STUDENT RATES, go to
http://www.cjr.org/subscribe/
#2 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Mon 13 Jul 2009 at 11:24 AM
Am I missing something here? What rational reason could you possibly have for running this teaser intro and then not allowing me to read the rest of the articles in the package RIGHT NOW?
Charge me $1 or $2 or whatever you think will bring you the most revenue based on projected number of sales vs. price, and I'd click to buy it, because I'm intrigued and want to read more NOW. Or maybe I'd prefer to have it sent to my iPhone or Kindle. Offer that for a buck or two.
In my case, I already subscribe to the print edition of CJR. But the "No Free Lunch" issue hasn't landed in my physical mailbox yet, so I'm outta luck. You could've made an extra buck from me just now, but didn't. If you made the price too high, as a print subscriber, I might choose to wait for the postal truck to show up; price it low enough (99 cents, a la iTunes, is a price low enough that I'll spend that without thinking) and I'll pay not to wait.
What if I wasn't a subscriber, and was unlikely to ever pay for a CJR subscription? I'd probably pay for this article if you'd let me, because I really want to read it.
So you're leaving money on the table. Why?
Normally, I'm an advocate of free web content, especially news, because it's so easy for online users to find the same thing elsewhere. So for most news content, publishers shoot themselves in the foot by hiding it behind a pay wall. Your package is different, because I can't find something that's similar enough; I need to subscribe or (as suggested above) pay for the package of stories. And because you've posted your introduction, "No Free Lunch" should still enjoy the traffic that Google, et al will send CJR's way.
There are other ways you might get people to "pay" for these online versions of your print articles, and these should hit the market soon. But I'm perplexed why you don't do the obvious right now and take my dollar (minus the financial commissions you'll pay).
Reading Mike Hoyt's response, it sounds like you want a strategy that maintains demand for the print edition by hiding its content online and insisting that to have everything from CJR, you have to get the printed magazine. BUT I DON'T REALLY WANT THE MAGAZINE! It lies around and I forget to read it. I feel guilty because the delivery of paper wastes gasoline and trees. I'd rather get CJR on the web, on my phone, on my Kindle, etc. My reading life is nearly entirely digital now; paper subscriptions have dwindled over the years and will continue to do so.
Mike's description of the strategy that's coming sounds old school to me, and CJR should be leading the industry, not by way of example holding it back from the digital revolution that we're in.
I hope you'll respond.
#3 Posted by Steve Outing, CJR on Mon 13 Jul 2009 at 07:55 PM
Steve,
First, thank you for the compliment, that CJR is worth paying for.
Second, We get it! We plan to do exactly what you propose—making stories available both to subscribers and on a per-story basis. We just have technical issues that are slowing us down.
We will get there in the fall. Meanwhile, we very much appreciate your comment.
Mike
#4 Posted by mike hoyt, CJR on Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 01:42 PM
I have recently begun visiting CJR more often and not only do I agree with Sara and Steve's comments above, i.e. that I would spend something nominal like the iTunes 99cent reference amount, to read this particular story online right now when it is convenient for me, the link is right in front of me and I am focused on this issue, but I would actually pay the $19.76 or so 6-month subscriber fee right now if and only if I could get immediate online access to the article I want; however, unless I'm misinformed, that does not appear to be the case. (I would justify signing up for 6-mo. subscription at about $19 since I figure I'd read approximately an article per month, so in essense I'd be paying $3 per article, which I'd be willing to try at least once, although I'm not sure I'd renew a 6 month subscription at that rate, vs. 99 cents per article.) But if as I think is the case I can't get immediate online access to this particular article, even if I subscribe online to 6 mo. subscription, I'm less motivated to subscribe, since, as Steve noted in similar vein, I receive hefty paid-for journals in the mail which I hate to throw out but never have time to read. In some cases I can access the paid journals online as well, but its not the same thing as having immediate access to a particular article I am interested in reading at a particular moment when it is relevant to something I am working or interested in reading, and it may be more cost effective for me if those particular journals offered pay-per article vs. package/full journal subscriptions only. However, I recognize it is challenging for a publisher to try to estimate how much revenue would come in on a pay-per-article basis vs. pay per journal or pay per annual subscription, etc. I write a blog for a membership association (the blog is currently free access, although we sometimes link to more detailed firewalled content that is members-only) so I empathise with the paid content/free content dilemna and look forward to learning more about how CJR rolls out its plan.
#5 Posted by Edith Orenstein, CJR on Sun 19 Jul 2009 at 10:52 AM
I agree with the above. Why not have a per article charge? As things stand I could use the teased pieces this coming semester but won't be able to because of time/geographical considerations.
Please rethink your policies.
#6 Posted by Alexander MacLeod London UK, CJR on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 07:35 AM
Thanks again to Alexander, Steve, and Sara. Two points: one, Alexander, it is a full year subscription, not six months, so a better deal for the money. And again, we intend to offer all our print stuff to print subscribers, and to offer individual pieces (or small packages of pieces) to nonsubscribers who, like Steve, prefer purchasing stories individually. Meanwhile, to be clear, all our online-only material will remain free.
All of this will happen sometime in the fall, when we get our technical ducks in a row. Many thanks for your interest.
Mike
#7 Posted by mike hoyt, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 06:28 PM
So, the one thing you *haven't* mentioned is an online-only subscription. For many of us (self included), it's nice to have an online-only subscription (e.g., download in PDF format). Personally, I need less, not more clutter, and I have my laptop/netbook with me pretty much 24/7 - so having subscriber access to the PDF, which I can use on any machine of mine, is near perfect.
The New Republic has a very, very good model, IMHO, which you might be able to replicate easily (more-tightly-segmented audience that's willing to pay a premium for specialty reporting). Might want to take a look.
As for more-traditional news media (e.g., NY Times, Local Newspaper X), that's a different story ...
#8 Posted by Thomas Wicker, CJR on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 12:51 PM
«CJR will soon (sometime this fall) make all the content of the Columbia Journalism Review print magazine available online for subscribers».
I will be happy to subrscribe to this on line version, or pdf versione. Let me know when you will be ready ;)
best regards
Amelia
#9 Posted by amelia beltramini, CJR on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 01:43 PM
Mike
How are you proposing to price the per article offering? All articles at the same price? Or variable? Or does the reader decide?
A penny (or a dollar) for your thoughts.
Raj
#10 Posted by Raj Mehta, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 03:16 AM
Bill Wyman just wrote an excellent article on the same subject, would have been interesting to compare notes
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing
#11 Posted by Rob in Madrid, CJR on Sat 15 Aug 2009 at 05:12 PM
The problem with a paywall, or any type of imposed deterrent on digital content is that it will have a few extra effects.
1, Less reach for your news and opinions. Your readership will contract, is that desirable?
2. People who do subscribe will share it with their non-subscriber friends, and once out in the wild, you have lost control of it.
I understand you feel like you should be compensated for the time and effort you put into the website, but I believe there are other (better) ways for you to earn that revenue than a digital barrier.
Could you offer subscribers your articles for a couple days before they get released to the "free" part of the site? Could you offer subscribers a newsletter with additional data and research and pretty graphs that non-paying visitors wouldn't get?
The "stub or pay" model is frustrating for visitors, and I'm sure that's not what you are trying to do.
Just my two cents.
#12 Posted by Phil Buckley, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 02:10 PM