I get much of my sports news from espn.com. There are several occasions where I'll come across an interesting headline, only to find that I need to be an "ESPN insider" to access the full article. The same goes with several scouting Web sites like scout.com.
Image: Brad WilsonI can't imagine a day and age where the majority of newspapers attempt the same thing. Isn't the point of the paper to make people want to read it? I could see them charging for something in-depth, but I don't want to pay for news. I'd say I have a right to know what's going on without paying somebody to tell me.
These journalists, who think it's a good idea to charge for news, need to revisit their business models. They aren't making money because of the news they're putting out. The papers are making serious money because of advertising on the Web site that a ton of people are seeing for free, not because of subscription fees. Do they really need that $10 a month for an online subscription? What if their online readership is cut in half because half of their "loyal" readers decide they'd just rather get their news for free from the paper down the street's Web site? As a result, advertisers will stop paying for advertising on the site because of decreased traffic. That's a lot more money lost than the $120 a year they'd get from subscribers.
ESPN can charge for their articles because people will pay for the professional insight that no one else is giving written by their well-known sports journalists. I suppose the same thing goes for business journals with great insight. If there is a hard news story that's that big of a deal, it will find it's way out there for all to see at no cost.
So what you are saying is that people have a right to news for free? Or just that breaking news ought to be free? Or that business and sports news has intrinsic value but straight news does not? I'll bet a lot of people would essentially say the same thing. But it is causing a problem in our socciety. Fewer reporters are paid to do less reporting and we end up in a war that was based on false information, info an aggressive press would have challenged.Instead, we just print what the talking heads say. That's not reporting. That's typing.
Yes, the NY Times and WSJ does this 'premium content' strategy as well..though, I WSJ does it best- some of their teaser headlines are really enticing..
"What if their online readership is cut in half because half of their "loyal" readers decide they'd just rather get their news for free from the paper down the street's Web site?"
I think that would be the best possible scenario for ESPN. Honestly, you only need to convert a very tiny percentage of readers to paid to make it worthwhile. Look at Rivals.com. If they can get just a thousand KU fans to fork over $10 a month (which they do), they can hire a full-time reporter and still rake in a generous profit (which they do).
Hmmm. Tough one. I get paid to write for a local newspaper but I also publish online for free. I torture my users by failing to use spell check and realize my competition is using whatever I post to schedule their editorial. (Small town newspaper politics) for specialized content there is a market for premium content but the business model is probably limited to large aggregator s.