Comments on: It’s time to charge money

By: What Counts as “Value” on a News Site? / Carpe Media.

What Counts as “Value” on a News Site? / Carpe Media. — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:03:43 +0000

[...] to the top 10 percent of readers, leaving the great majority blissfully unaffected.In a separate post from last week, “It’s Time to Charge Money,” Preston points to the New York [...]

By: What Counts as “Valuable” on a Newspaper’s Site? « The Information Valet Project

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:47:15 +0000

[...] the top 10 percent of readers, leaving the great majority blissfully unaffected. In a separate post from last week, “It’s Time to Charge Money,” Preston points to the New York [...]

By: Rikin

Rikin — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:36:20 +0000

Spot on Jason! They (NYTimes) kill it when it comes to interactive maps. Check out the piece on the Hudson plane crash. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html)

But I think the logic of who the value is deferred to is a little flawed. Why should it be the viewers of the content that should pay for the inherent value in the product? Shouldn’t, or at least couldn’t, it be the marketers and advertisers who WANT to be next to engaging content with eyeballs on it? I mean lets face it, even the newspaper industry is supported by advertisers more than they are by paying subscribers. That’s why the freebie daily papers exist.

By: Links for the weekend | Links para o fim de semana « O Lago | The Lake

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:50:17 +0000

[...] It’s time to charge money, EatSleepPublish [...]

By: The internet now second only to television as a news source — Eat Sleep Publish

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:47:02 +0000

[...] I’ve already said, it’s time to monetize it. Subscribe to Eat Sleep Publish Email This [...]

By: TD Hedengren

TD Hedengren — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:57:39 +0000

While you could be right regarding if people would pay for it or not, I think your thesis falls on the fact that this is new and sleek right now. Yes, it looks good, but it’s not all that hard to duplicate. The experience, technically as well as design-wise, isn’t worth paying for. The content, on the other hand, might be, and it benefits from a nice presentation of course.

By: Paul Balcerak

Paul Balcerak — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:17:50 +0000

OK — this right here is the kind of thing I was talking about a few posts ago when I said I thought the only kind of content newspapers could charge for would be “entertainment”-type stuff.

I looked at these slide shows, too, the other day and thought they were awesome. If the NYT would’ve just offered one and then said, “Want to watch more? Just PayPal us $0.50 per,” I’d totally do it. (Note: If it were some NYT-based pay system where I had to create a new username/account and re-submit information that I’d already left elsewhere a million times, I’d probably be less likely to do it. Hence the PayPal reference.)

By: Allan McDougall

Allan McDougall — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:07:41 +0000

The keyword is interface. That’s just stunning. I think interactive content like that is the way of the future, especially in the fields of journalism and e-learning.

Thanks for sharing,

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:58:43 +0000

Robert - you're right that "flashy" doesn't necessarily equal "money," but I think that the biggest hurdle in charging people for news online is that they're used to a certain kind of news being free. You want a better user interface? You want high definition audio and video? You want special, mobile-interface productions? Those things take time, effort, and money to produce. They're the cable channels of internet news. If you redefine the product, then you have a chance to sell it. I'm worried that the NYT is leading the path to offering HBO to everyone for free, a their own expense.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:52:12 +0000

Something being new, cool, and interactive was never enough. What is the value? Just because its high tech doesnt mean the fundamentals of marketing a product have changed. the 4pps of marketing have not been replaced with “its digital, so pay money”