Have you ever imagined that one day we can never search and read general interest news stories online for free? Will you stick on reading them regardless how much it will charge, or will you seek for some other alternatives to acquire the information?
"At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition," News International CEO Rebekah Brooks said in a broadly reported statement. She added that "This is just the start" but did not offer up details on plans for the company's two other U.K. publications. Meanwhile, in another move to save his business, Murdoch continues to point fingers at Google for depriving the industry of revenue by making news articles searchable for free. He plans to press legal action against the search giant if talks fail over its indexing of news content.
By adding extra charge, they are obviously maximizing their profit margin in the competitive market. While the two news websites are for general interest information, but not for academic or professional works, is it still necessary to charge public readers? CMC has already made it possible to access to world wide web which provides all kinds of information that updates people with the latest situations in the world. Do they have any advantage in charging the internet content? Will people be willing to pay for it for just turn to other websites? It is still to be seen after the trial period. Consumers are always the leaders in the market.
In fact, many newspaper publishers are doing this. For example, in Singapore, The Straits Times also offers an online platform for readers to get their daily dose of news. However, the 'free' news articles are limited to a summary of the entire article. The full article itself is only available only if you are a member - basically you need to pay to read. This feature itself is convenient for people always on the go, reading important news on their mobiles, instead of holding a huge piece of newspaper. For myself, I would most probably be the latter.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it will work effectively. Realistically, how many people can afford that when the purpose of using these sites is for 'browsing'? And by that I mean less than 30 seconds of looking at an article then you move on to another website.
ReplyDeleteI read most of the news through the Internet but am not committed to just one provider - so maybe this tactic will be effective in garnering a committed market for The Times.
I don't think there's a need for newspapers to charge for online content, unless it's premium articles by professionals on specialized topics.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it doesn't not make sense to charge for something that other websites offer for free.
Secondly,it's definitely going to reduce their readership significantly, because the readers could easily switch to another online portal for similar information.
Thirdly, there are other sources of revenue that these newspapers could tap into, such as advertising revenue from third party companies. Moreover, advertising revenue figures is much more than subscription fees. So why charge for subscription, when it harms readership, which directly affects advertising revenue as well? In fact, The New York Times dropped their online subscription charges after two years, because the subscription revenues are a far cry from the advertising revenue.
Therefore, I believe that it will be mutually beneficial for the newspapers to provide an online portal for free to the general public. However, the newspapers need to look for alternative sources of revenues to maintain it. After all, it is only fair that newspapers, being businesses, benefit monetarily from its provision of free news to the public.
And I believe that it's possible for online businesses and general public to achieve this win-win situation. Just look at Google :)
Generally agree that there is no need to charge for online news. Firstly, enabling consumers to pay for the news will require additional charges for banks or credit cards to actually process the payments. These charges are not reflective of the amount of money consumers actually pay for and may sometimes be more than the amount of money consumers pay for per news read.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, newspaper companies should strive to provide free news to the general public and seek their revenue else where. By providing free news to viewers, they can increase the number of 'hits' on their sites and endorsers, advertisers will naturally be attracted to advertise on these companies' websites.
Lastly, to ask consumers to pay for news every time they want to view them is inconvenient for them and will definitely reduce their welfare. :)
I dont think this is an effective way for the news article to increase its profit margin. It may instead deter regular readers from visiting their website. What the company should have done is to find other alternatives to increase their margins, by internet advertisements on their site or simply following the Straits Times method.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet has allowed us to gain informaiton and news very easily. If this news website is unaccessible, it will be easily replaced by another...
Since they are just starting to charge the fee, i think public readers will turn to other alternatives. However, because the newspapers are known for their good content, people who feel that they need the service in daily basis will pay the fee and keep reading it. It might also be possible that people prefer the print newspaper, instead. On the other hand, the world wide web itself really has changed the old media into a brand new communication era. People can easily access many things through the web.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet has only been around for less than 2 decades, and it has been overwhelmingly popular in developed countries. Today, we see firms, organizations make use of the Internet as a business point of view to make money. (Eg. News information, online gambling, fast food delivery service). The Internet has been the platform for many businesses out there, without it, the chances of them flopping are considerably high if they do not look to other sources of revenue.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to the issue of news providers charging for viewing of content, it would soon become a norm, if all other news content providers follow suit to "News International". However the thought and sound of it now may seem absurd.
But picture this, in the year 1950, if you were to walk up to someone on the street and in 2 minutes, explain to the person to set aside $ x amount a month, in exchange for a deal that covers physical body harm (present day insurance policy), how would you think the person back then would respond? Unlikely they would accept your offer right? Insurance policies only became popular in the recent decades.
My point is, new policies generally have a negative impact on their clients, but will soon become accepted into society.
I think that charging readers would not be of any profit or benefit to them because readers would only approach other available sites and alternatives that are free of charge.
ReplyDeleteEven if readers are willing to pay, in return,they expect a full package of better reading materials, resources and friendly service that other sites can't provide them for free.
If online sites that charge their readers are of better quality as compared to others that allow their readers to read for free, then I don't see any reason why readers shouldn't pay if they are provided with resources that are not readily available to everyone.
The company should have done the marketing research to make sure they will make more profits otherwise it will not take action to charge. In my opinion, not all online news can make profits by charging since customers are not willing to pay for all kinds of news. For me, I am not willing to pay for entertainment news. If one entertainment website charge me, i would choose another website to read that news. Anyway google is really a good tool for reading news!
ReplyDeleteA typical case of standardization on Internet commercials. In order to make profits in global capitalist mkt, firms need to extend their ways on profitability from trditional "make and buy" to a brandnew stage-- cyberspace commercials.
ReplyDeletePaying for information online may sometimes get on our nerves. However, if these information are good and reliable, I dont see why don't we pay for it. There is a saying, what you get is what you pay for.
ReplyDeleteNice work! Cecilia, this passage really gets me to think about media in the 21st century where Internet has played such important role that it has the potential to dominate the news spreading channels. But as far as I am concerned, this proposal of charging readers will not be so effective in rising their profit margin, but contrarily, might lower their profit since Internet news is popular exactly for its convenience and low cost, now the process of assessing Internet news is no longer convenient and the cost is substantial, most rational people will start to consider alternatives and this might lead to less popularity of Internet news.
ReplyDeleteWell i personally feel that with the Computer-mediated-Communication(CMC) in today's world, consumers will not subscribe in order to just read an article. i mean, with the CMC, people are able to get the same e information without paying it from other website.
ReplyDeleteI think that making payment for news online and offline works in the same way. Given that we are currently paying for newspaper that are being delivered to our doorstep, it is then no different if we are to pay for online contents.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of Singpapore, the idea of payment may help the media to distinguish itself from all the other rubbish sites. This is so as by collecting payment, they become responsible for the type of news that theyw ill be showing to their customers. As such, it helps to ensure that the information are accurate. Moreover the additional payment may also help make more funds avaialabl for the media companies to do more converage of news. Perhaps then the quality of coverage may indirectly improved too.
Well the age of free news is well over and we as the audience and recipients of news should now learn to adopt to this minor changes. Afterall, we are only required to pay for a dollar or more for the news.
providing more and charging more . it is going to be a trend in the media industry. many media are creating new services in a new area.they are expanding their market by giving more services . of course the cost becomes larger within this creation. who will pay for the cost? the media won't.it only the consumer can be. because they are getting benefits.
ReplyDeleteNice article. Personally, I think it unjustifiable and unpractical to charge the internet access to news website for the following reasons.
ReplyDelete1. It is against the spirit of free access of information. This can be shown both through a legal point of view, freedom of information act 2000 and market point of view, perfection information desired by a free market system. The action to go against this trend will expose the websites under increasing public pressure.
2. The nature of news is essentially distinguishable from other forms of "inventions", such as literaure, academic journals and scientific discoveries, which required originality in a sense and the copy of which infringes upon the rights of the copyholder. News, though with an input labour of collection and presentation, is of a factual nature, of which the public is entited to know.
3. Economically, they will suffer. They expect to make a forturn by charging access. They will be proved wrong. They have clearly overestimate the detrimental reliance of the public upon them. Indeed few people would pay for it when there are other available ways of getting the information, such as other websites, free newspapers (distributed every day in London underground), TV and radio.
i just know some online newpaper must pay money for reading. i believe someone need those important information, so they will pay money for read. in short , it is a good start for our society
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view,some news may become a useful information to someone, consider the opportunity cost frome pay for news and get the useful information there will have some people willing to pay for it.Therefore charge for the news will become a new revenue resources for the media industry.
ReplyDelete