... iTunes proves newspapers can and should charge for online. (Hat tip, Davel Lull.)
iTunes offers access to a product people are willing to pay for. But what Glenn says here about the Kindle is probably more to the point. Note that Glenn also links to Howard Kurtz on the same subject. None of the newspaper people seem to know of Michael Yon or Michael Totten.
Do online newspapers really need to charge?
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing somewhere that the newstand price of a paper only partially subsidizes the cost of production. And I imagine the online version (that is, one that comes with no fees for paper or presses) costs far less to produce on a day-to-day basis. So if you're able to move the majority of your readership online exclusively, one would guess that your operational costs, even with no fee for viewing, would remain in the same ball park.
Advertising space is what's always made newspapers profitable. So why can't that be the case for online news sources?
Shit man, Perez Goddamn Hilton is making money. The Inquirer, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. can't pull it off?
-G
As I understand it, The Inquirer is actually doing fairly well in the money-making category. The problem is that they are not doing well enough to be able to service their debt, which is colossal. The NYT has been wretchedly managed by Pinch Sulzberger.
ReplyDeleteWhich then raises the question: Just how much is your name worth?
ReplyDeleteDepending on how deep the debt is for these two papers, respectively, it might be worthwhile to file Chapter 11 then start again -- carrying over your relevant infrastructure and staff -- as a new online entity.
You could probably even allude heavily to your former name. PhilaInq.com has a nice ring to it.
-G