The cover story of our current issue argues that mobile reading devices like the iPad, Amazon Kindle, and Sony Reader offer publishers a “second chance” to monetize digital content in a way that escaped them during the advent of Web 1.0. Consumers have already demonstrated a willingness to pay for subscriptions on such devices, if not yet in large numbers.
In late April, the Audit Bureau of Circulations announced that newspaper circulation had fallen nearly 9 percent compared to a year earlier, but also that subscriptions to the top 25 newspaper e-editions—which includes digital replicas, online-only subscriptions, and products like Times Reader, in addition to e-reader subscriptions—were up 40 percent. Bureau spokesman Neal Lulofs cautioned that the growth was not attributable to the emergence e-readers, however. “Newspapers, in general, are not yet selling a large number of subscriptions to their content via these devices, from what we see,” he said.
Nonetheless, beginning in March 2011, the bureau will change the form (pdf) that newspapers use to report electronic-edition circulation, allowing them to breakdown subscriptions via the Web, e-readers, and other mobile devices. So, we’re curious what would take to get you to start buying your news on mobile devices like the iPad and Kindle? The death of your print paper? Better or cheaper devices? An easier or different way to subscribe to e-editions?
An electonic edition of a newspaper, magazine, or book is less expansive for a publisher to create than a paper edition. I am offended when they try to charge the same price (and sometimes even a higher price) for the electronic edition.
#1 Posted by Graham Burnette, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 05:41 PM
Why would I "buy" news to be delivered via any distribution method?
Most if not all news is delivered with the political slant of the individual and/or news organization giving the news. I think that is just a fact.
Even if internet news providers start charging, I can get the same type of slant by reading "blogs" by people that pay for the news and then regurgitate it adding their own slant.
#2 Posted by MsDollie, CJR on Wed 14 Jul 2010 at 11:27 AM
I agree with Graham -- the e-edition would have to be cheaper than the print edition, but (obviously) feature more content than the still-free online stuff.
#3 Posted by Lauren, CJR on Wed 14 Jul 2010 at 03:23 PM
The electronic source needs to be meaty, trustworthy and enterprising. The price must be reflective of the cost of the journalism, not a replica of the pruning and distribution costs of print. When the Wall Street Journal first priced it's iPad subscription it was way too high. When they offered it for $2 a week I subscribed.
#4 Posted by swamijim, CJR on Fri 16 Jul 2010 at 05:17 PM
I'll pay for the NY Times on my Kindle or iPad, but not more than $5 a month. The Times now costs $240 a year on Kindle, which is absurd.
#5 Posted by Justin, CJR on Mon 19 Jul 2010 at 04:37 PM
I'd wager that most people who have commented so far do not know the true cost of producing the actual news content online.
Sure, you shed a bunch of fixed costs by not producing a print edition, but can you actually pay a journalist a living wage on the income you make from a $2 per week e-edition subscription? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm sure some people have done the math. (It's worth noting that print subscribers do not pay the costs of running a newsroom. Advertising income does.)
But I do know there will be no professional journalists if the news business, blogs or non-profit organizations can't afford to pay them.
#6 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Wed 4 Aug 2010 at 02:12 AM