Yes - Matt Simpson Head of digital OMD
News is free and widely available, so unless the entire news-providing world changed to a subscription model, it is unlikely that any title that did move to subscription would hold enough value to consumers to maintain its market share.
Every title will have its own challenges, but it is safe to say the broader the appeal, the more likely consumers are to be able to get the content elsewhere for free.
Micro-charging is quickly establishing itself as the new model for subscriber-based income. However, it still relies on the concept of having something worth paying for.
The challenge to those in the newspaper industry is to establish elements of their offering that are valuable enough to charge for. It is unlikely these elements will come from news stories and related comment, but rather from unique content, such as bingo, sudoku, mobile text alerts and in-depth guidance on financial issues.
No - Dan Brown, Group account director, UM
The introduction of a micro-payments model on The Wall Street Journal is a positive move that will be closely watched by other publishers eager to plug plunging ad revenues. In the case of the WSJ, the intention is to attract occasional users who may be put off by the $100 a year subscription.
A quick view across forums and communities reveals the topic of paid- for content is extremely polarised. The majority of people are strongly against paying for any content, while those who subscribe to premium content appreciate the benefit.
There does not appear to be a middle ground that is essentially where a micro-payments model would sit.
The main problem facing the WSJ is that it already has a strong base of subscribers who are happy to pay a subscription for premium content. The net result of introducing micro-payments may be to cannibalise this existing base rather than encourage new users.
Yes - Rob Grimshaw, Managing director, FT.com
Publishers should be charging for online content, but should it be micro-charging? Perhaps, but a one-size-fits-all approach is not going to work.
For FT.com, we innovated with a charging model that addresses the fact our readers place great value in our content, but also that grazing on a small amount of content for free is a valuable part of our audience's make-up too.
So, depending on the audience, publishers will also need to innovate in how they make money from what is of real value to their audience.
Every publisher should be looking at whether they charge for their content online and micro-payments are one of the key ways they can do that.
Yes - Michael Beecroft, Head of digitaltTrading, MEC Interaction
Charging for online content through a micro-payment mechanic can, and will, prosper in the future.
The main barrier currently restricting success is that the payment structure isn't quite there. A PayPal style equivalent is needed to really make this a workable model.
However, the idea of charging for online news content with a micro- payment system will mostly appeal to consumer markets. People won't pay for something they are used to receiving for free, but exclusive film trailers, football highlights, fan clubs and ringtones have proved successful.
There is no reason why news content cannot follow suit. With The Wall Street Journal, and equivalents, a taster of the article could be displayed while holding back extra exclusive content.
Images, videos and other assets that consumers might pay more to view can then be purchased, as long as these extra nuggets cannot be found elsewhere.
1 article comment