Instead, I think paid or metered content would be best applied to “fun” stuff — the Boston Globe’s Big Picture Blog being a perfect example. Right now it’s all free, but if there were a way to charge for it (difficult because the photos are culled from all over) who wouldn’t pay a nominal fee (like Flickr pro’s $25/year)?

This is entirely subjective, but apply that argument to whatever you like to consume and it stands.

Archives is just straight math, and it should be decided paper by paper – if you make more money filling the ad inventory and milking the long tail, then keep ‘em free. If, instead, you make more money by charging people for access, then charge people for access. ’nuff said.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree with the development of true interactive/searchable/useful content on newspaper web sites. I think that’s an essential part of a paid offering.

What should maybe happen is that the existing functionality of newspaper sites (or something close to it) will remain free, and all the added functionality of a real web-based news resource will come with a fee attached…

However, I also agree with Suzanne that “hard-hitting news stories … are the kind that should be free and accessible just on principle alone” and a lot of journalists probably feel the same way.

What about charging for archives? I know the Yakima Herald-Republic used to (I know because I had to pay to view my own ******* stories back when I was applying for jobs), though it looks like they’ve ceased that at the moment (perhaps killing my question). I’d pay $0.99 to be able to get an text and pdf version of the M’s 1995 Divisional Series win ($2.95 for just text is a little steep, though).

I agree with the fact that people are willing to pay for quality content. This is something we’re banking on at my internship, The Public Press. But it better be the best content you can’t find anywhere else. Consumer Reports does this well, and big databases such as Lexis-Nexis are worth every penny.

I think I read this in JTM’s Next Newsroom plan, and I wholeheartedly agree with it: If news outlets had robust searchable databases, such as local schools information, crime maps, an easy-to-use public records database or something else like that, I can imagine people willing to pay for it. But to create that kind of content, you will have to be well-staffed, and the price you charge will have to offset the staffing.

It’s a tougher sell when you’re talking about hard-hitting news stories, though. Those are the kind that should be free and accessible just on principle alone. I think the upsell potential lies in something that’s searchable, useful, easy to use and THOROUGH as hell.

-Suzanne

PS: I’ve changed the name of the blog from “everyday journalism” to just my name, in part for SEO and all that “personal branding” rubbish, and in part to reflect that I’m writing about a lot more than just yer average everyday journalism. Just FYI.

More basically, my point is that the news business used to be based on charging for something that was difficult to do: distributing information. Now everyone can distribute information for free, so fewer people are willing to pay for it, which means it’s time to find something new to charge for.

As for everyone doing it simultaneously, I’ve heard that one before, but I don’t buy it. In this particular case, a few papers just need to prove the market, and others will follow. I think the audience is less fickle than most people assume – there’s still such a thing as a loyal following.

Metered content on “bonus” material is another way to pull in a few bucks (it seems like ESPN makes a killing doing this) but I’m not convinced that enough people value investigative reporting (I assume that’s what you’re talking about) for it to “save” the business.