Whether important media providers such as the New York Times or other not that much recognized decide to charge the users of their online sites in order to access to the "quality" news they provide, will not limit the online users to get access to the information for free. It is well known by all of us, users of media, that what gives this kind of major journals their strength and importance in the market is the amount of readers that prefer them rather than some minor competitors.
However, it is a trend in the whole media industry to provide information services for free, as we can see in the newspaper industry, everyday more companies decide to circulate them for free, and of course advertising companies prefer those since are often the ones with more circulation among the population.
Given this, the users will find new alternate sources to stay informed without having to pay any kind of memberships or access fees. However this doesn't necessary infers that only the richest part of our society will have access to those online news sites, since the amount to be charged is not necessarily too much for some other social classes which are willing to spend some of their budgets to acquire "high-quality" information.
But without any doubt, the total number of readers in these major media online sites will experience a huge drop, probably resulting in the lost of interest for the advertisers, resulting this in a big revenue loss for those companies. Probably looking at this from a same approach some of those major online news sites will not even discuss the possibility of charging us to get access to their news.
However, it is a trend in the whole media industry to provide information services for free, as we can see in the newspaper industry, everyday more companies decide to circulate them for free, and of course advertising companies prefer those since are often the ones with more circulation among the population.
Given this, the users will find new alternate sources to stay informed without having to pay any kind of memberships or access fees. However this doesn't necessary infers that only the richest part of our society will have access to those online news sites, since the amount to be charged is not necessarily too much for some other social classes which are willing to spend some of their budgets to acquire "high-quality" information.
But without any doubt, the total number of readers in these major media online sites will experience a huge drop, probably resulting in the lost of interest for the advertisers, resulting this in a big revenue loss for those companies. Probably looking at this from a same approach some of those major online news sites will not even discuss the possibility of charging us to get access to their news.
I have to agree with Jose. A switch from the advertising revenue model to the subscription revenue model, this could very much lead to a significant drop in readers. One of the most significant issues is can the advertising revenue model be adjusted so that more profitability could be obtained while keeping the content free. I believe what emon stated, which can be reached via this link http://emonkee.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-york-times-is-going-to-use-paywall.html, that the advertisement revenue model must undergo an extensive analysis before any switch should be made.
ReplyDeleteSome historic facts taken from mint.com:
ReplyDelete1. On February The Rocky Mountains News printed its last edition, just two months shy of its 150th anniversary
2. Year to date there have been 13,636 newspaper employee layoffs
3. Online advertising has been growing 24% year by year and conventional advertising -7.5%
This is a clear fact, that online lecture , for being free and more comfortable and 100% mobile it's making a trend for accessing information for free. All newspapers are loosing circulation due to its online versions..
Michael Arrington of the totally free publication TechCrunch said: charging for viewing news content its like charging with something available on BitTorrent