Please note thtat of the three mentioned here, NY Times makes most of its available content accessible for distribution and is coming out in the Top few, while WSJ and FT have gone into an exclusive ‘club’ of wanting to lose more and shut down the business for a stupid argument, but that’s just not the argument. Also, WSJ’s teasers may soon be well in the same league as Advantage zyaada, Drudge Report and the Huffington Affair..:)
Paying for Online Content
Google had recently reached an agreement with the newspapers to provide limited access after a fixed number of searches. And the music companies are inventing pricing models and new partnerships every day. But more about pricing music later.. The one we are saying is tough for the media giants to survive is the one where they have to choose what to charge for their web edition.
I think it was more productive when it was a lower all you can eat charge and common sense dictates that this price be the same across all web channels. But WSJ and NYT are hell bent on creating a bad taste in the readers’ mouth with separate charges when you try to use your Kindle then iPhone and even for e-readers.
None of us finally minds paying for online content. For those that need it, there are student subscriptions, library subscriptions and corporate subscriptions. But paying for the same thing twice is kind of a revenue dampener. And invasive online advertising isn’t going to pay either. The customer will never get used to this new model. The Advertiser might but he should not be confused as the reader. The advertiser is getting a different segment on the e-readers and the Kindles if it makes any sense for him to go there. But the reader is the same And this serious business reader is powerful to stop you in your tracks by removing his credit card information despite your efforts at scamming him or her into giving away all control of his paying activity. These practices will be heavily penalised on this new continent and the Googles are much ahead in making sure they provide all content in web searches to give access.
Creating a brand online is not going to be easy, but you cannot break down your readership with challenges like these. You have
I will pay for your content, once
| Rafes Radar
I consider it a professional courtesy to pay, even handsomely, for excellent work. What I wont do is pay for twice. Unfortunately, thats what the WSJ wants me to do:I recently downloaded the iPhone app for the WSJ, and discovered that getting access to the stories that Im paying for already on the Web was going to cost me another $52 a year. And thats the discounted rate for existing subscribers. iPhone and BlackBerry app access is $78 a year if you dont already have either a Web or print subscription. Its only if you subscribe to both the Web and print editions of the WSJ that you get iPhone app access for “free.”No, I dont think so.Credit: Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNETThis is madness. Im paying for online access to the stories. Why on earth should the publication charge me for it twice, or differently, just because I want to view that content, sometimes, on another connected device?
Some of our regulars would feel a little disoriented by this extract, if only because the web has seemed so mature an d in tune with the print editions as far as the newspapers are concerned. The truth is the web editions and now the Kindle and the iPhone editions are being touted as different channels by most places, with the Kindle even charging without any recourse to another edition be it print or web. The NYTimes even charges separately for e-readers and Kindle
The Financial Times has had a much more robust pricing model for all its electronic editions. These simple things have distinguished its prominent position from the academic positions for Euromoney and WSJ publications and the same case study does hold true even now.
Even as Brian Moynihan takes over at BofA under Walter Massey, Kenneth Lewis’ impact is still likely material in Bank Am’s social world. And even if less people Google for Bank of America today or for any other bank for that matter, the social media might easily keep BofA alive and winning because in its social practices its just noe that ‘vitriolic’ that the mdeia would try to make it out to be. And you can’t force the social media participant to ignore social opinion. The BofA brand will survive and grow stronger as long as it is feeding the social groups in a consistent manner Similarily the press and the networks would have to adopt the social way to win hearts. Shouting from the rooftops and relying on the price message will also accelerate the negative impact of such foolhardy decisions.
Please note however, just because premium pricing succeeds, does not mean I can force it down on everyone. Unless it is ongoing engagement, there is very little in it for you.
Update of Jan 5, 2010:
Is the Business media losing relevance? Well, the N Y Times is holding the Top 100 as pricing models do not ban readers , while WSJ and Pear-son’s FT are falling fast! But this is a small crisis of Christmas …Read on for the hottest drop of 2010. We changed our tastes online. We decide who reads what.
Funnily, Google lost it’s talk about relevance too..so that is not the answer!
- Random Thoughts: My Take on Movies I keep reading in my...
- Selecting The Best Seo Firm For Your Business Most of the corporations are...
- Make Blogging Work for Your Business pt 2 Are you ready to make...
- Profitable Internet Marketing Tips that Give Outcomes The success of your web...
- Online Learning And Its Benefits Online education is really becoming...