The New York Times is expected to begin charging for their online content this coming spring. It's likely that they will use a metered system, allowing viewers to read a certain number of article for free before paying.
The Times tried something similar before with TimesSelect, which charged readers to view columnists' content, but readership fell and they nixed the whole thing.
Meanwhile, locally, SFGate, the on-line version of the Chronicle, quietly began a different strategy on Sunday, in essence, requiring customers who wanted to read selected content, to pick up the print edition.
Those looking to read Matier and Ross, sportswriters, Ray Ratto and Scott Ostler, were unable to access their columns on-line; instead, according to the Gate, one could see those pieces in the Sunday paper. How convenient.
The "comments" content under the Gate announcement were 3-1 against the move, which wasn't shocking given the manner in which the new method was outlined. Whether or not this is a long-term model isn't clear, but its widely believed the Chronicle and its parent company, Hearst corp. are planning some sort of metered system, similar to the Times, allowing viewers to read a certain number of article for free before paying.
ANALYSIS: Outside of the Wall St. Journal, which has a paid site, and has been able to maintain a steady stream of readership and profitability, overall, paid sites have not fared well in this current climate.
If the Times model was a failure, how can it hope to to be successful in an era when the abundance of free content on the web is still so prevalent. Even distinguished and meaty columnists like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and Nick Kristoff weren't enough of a draw to make the Times experiment a success.
One can assume SFGate and its model, whatever that is, will be anything different from the Times system, although a growing number of media companies are in the process of trying to acquire some much-needed Internet revenue. Sounds fair on paper, but will it work in the long run? Not likely. Why? Just too many sites out there that are free and the idea of paying for on-line content, however "unique" is still in the minority.
**Follow me on Twitter and Examiner.com
No comments:
Post a Comment