• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
TheWayoftheWeb

TheWayoftheWeb

Content and Digital Marketing Specialists

  • Blog
  • The Cipher
  • About Us
    • Useful Resources For Businesses In Peterborough, UK
  • Contact Us
  • Show Search
Hide Search

newspapers

Why newspapers will need 1000 true fans…

September 21, 2009 By Dan Thornton

Newspapers will need to focus on their ‘1000 true fans’ when they switch on paywalls, judging by a survey released today by Paid Content UK and Harris.

The survey has appeared in response to plans by Rupert Murdoch and others to start putting news content behind a paywall, and reveals that if their favourite news site started charging, 3/4 of people claim they’d find another free site – only 5% would pay to continue reading.

And ironically, it’s younger readers who are more likely to cough up some cash than the older users – the 35-44-year-olds are the ones most likely to go elsewhere- although the middle class readers are most likely to pay.

Now that doesn’t have to be bad news for newspapers, if they can provide something that is worth subscription payments which make up for the lost readership.

The problem, as identified by Matt Thompson at Nieman Reports, and covered by Karthika Muthukumaraswamy at Online Journalism Blog (OJB), is that the majority of online news lacks in depth and detail what it gains in ‘24/7 access, real-time updates, increased transparency, and multiperspectival discussions’

In fact ‘The home page of almost every popular news site looks like a commercial for news stories other than the one you’re reading’.

The problem isn’t the internet itself, which is what the OJB article ends with – Thompson uses the example of Wikipedia to form great long form articles and stories, whilst Muthukumaraswamy picks out the New York Times, CNN, the BBC and The Guardian as examples of news orgs producing great standalone features.

The problem is one of perception by news teams.

The online format has always been taught as following the ‘hard news’ example – get the story across as quickly and in as few words as possible. People don’t have the time or patience to read more online, so hit them with hundreds of brief news items and they’ll flit about like a moth in a well-lit kitchen. The same thing we’ve seen advised for blogs, online video, and has been supported by the rise of microblogging.

But that’s wrong – as you can see by the success of full-length novels on mobile phones in Japan, for example.

Many, many people are now accessing the web by an ever-increasing number of devices, and as the digital familiarity has increased, we’re looking for increasingly different things.

Meanwhile newspapers heading behind the paywall will have to flip their editorial approach as quickly as they flip their business model. They’ll need to provide depth, detail and context to justify payment, using editorial teams which have been cut back more and more to try and survive on display advertising. And I haven’t seen a huge number of Murdoch titles hiring staff, for example. In fact, it appears to be AOL that’s hiring! (1500 writers is a clear indication of intent).

The paywall model will be doomed for exactly the same reason that most display-ad model newspaper sites were doomed – a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of online journalism. Almost 10 years ago I saw a competitor site switch to a paywall model and heard many people ask how they could survive – and at the same time those people were imagining a world in which the print news team would seamlessly move across to an all-conquering website.

Meanwhile hundreds of blogs and websites were springing up on a daily basis by starting small and experimenting their way into growth and editorial staff – the exact opposite of businesses which closed small-scale publications and dismissed any launches which didn’t look likely to drive an immediate huge audience with a corresponding need for staff and resources.

A handful of news organisations will make it through the next few years, whether by spreading themselves far and wide, or by engaging totally with their 1000 true fans to the degree that they can secure repeated subscriptions. Any that don’t commit fully to one of these directions, and achieve it to their maximum potential, are going to fail to crawl out of the swamp and evolve digital legs.

Off to London Twestival tonight… And Google’s news masterstroke

September 10, 2009 By Dan Thornton

And then I’m spending a long weekend concentrating on my family, so don’t expect many updates until Monday…

Details of London Twestival 2009.

And in the meantime, two things have caught my attention:

 

One is the fact that the Government’s quoted figure of 7 million illegal file sharers seems to have been revealed as being spun out of a very small original survey, with some assumptions distorting the figures. (Hat Tip to  JP Rangaswami)

 

The other is the response to newspapers from Google – they’re creating a micropayments system to appear within the next year. (via Mashable).

I’d guess there are a few reasons for Google adopting a checkout-type micropayment system for newspaper content:

  • It’ll shut the newspaper owners up for a while – allowing Google to press ahead with book deals etc to own even more alternative content.
  • It will also be available for Google properties, meaning that there are ways to cream off some of the money at the top, as well as by providing the service itself.
  • Bugger all people will embrace fixed internet micro payments for generic content.

The last one is the most important – and even in the world of mobile there are divisions between iPhone app spending and Android app spending which suggests that even on an supposedly highly chargeable platform (mobile), many people are starting to expect apps for free.

-NB- I’ve just though of another reason why this benefits Google more than anyone else:

  • If the newspapers are fooled into believing this system will make them rich, then they’ll start pushing pressure on aggregation sites to pay – Digg, Reddit, etc. Those sites are unlikely to be happy about paying for content, and the efforts and traffic newspapers currently drive from those sites will disappear. Meanwhile, the one aggregation destination which will be safe and secure will be: Google News.

Johnston Press manage a Facebook facepalm moment…

July 2, 2009 By Dan Thornton

I honestly don’t know where to begin with this one. Paid Content UK has revealed Johnston Press is banning employee access to Facebook, requiring journalists to ask permission from their department head, and contact the IT department.

Apparently it’s due to Facebook comprising more than half of the company’s outbound internet traffic. (They’re by no means alone in this…I can vouch for plenty of media and non-media business with the same traffic ratios).

PaidContent raises two important points – journalists are finding the site incredibly useful for their work, and Johnston titles run their own Facebook pages already!

In addition, I’d remind Johnston that it’s a media/content company, and everyone in the company should be able to not only use Facebook for work-related tasks, but also to be thinking about how Johnston will exist in the networked world.

And I’d see how many people in the Johnstone offices are now checking their mobiles more often…

It makes a smuch sense as banning people from reading printed news.

Who will kill online newspapers first? Their subjects, or the lawmakers?

June 30, 2009 By Dan Thornton

It could be a great time to run a newspaper soon, if Judge Richard Posner has his way.

He has suggested that linking to copyright material should be outlawed,

‘Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent . . .’

You can read his blog post, or the appropriate level of disbelief in Erik Schonfeld’s coverage, as he rightly points out this idea would outlaw public discourse, freedom of speech and fair use rights.

Jeff Jarvis mentions a column by Connie Schultz which proposes content would be available only on the originators website for the first 24 hours.

If either law ever came into existence, I have the perfect way to create a hugely successful news source.

Licence it all under Creative Commons.

While the rest of the newspaper sites are struggling to understand that they can’t coerce people into only linking to them in the correct, legal, or desired way, a Creative Commons site would clean up in inbound links and traffic until it was the only one standing!

What about when the subjects we cover start to control the news?

An interesting series of articles is just starting over on Nieman Journalism Lab, discussing what happens when Sports Leagues are able to become media moguls and control the news.

In the U.S., Major League Baseball has launched it’s own cable TV channel MLB Network, which is the focus of the first of the four part series.

But it isn’t just leagues that can afford TV which offer a threat.

It’s every organisation or business which is now able to reach consumers/fans directly via Facebook, Twitter, Email etc. All enabling them to reach an ever-increasing audience to distribute their beliefs, opinions and news.

Whether or not that content is well-received is another matter, but the simple fact is that it’s out there, and increasing daily. And will only increase for every bit of evidence that can indicate it’s more effective in driving transactional revenue than straight advertising.

Every media business needs to be planning for what happens if and when the subjects of your stories (and advertisers) start telling them for themselves.

The context is more important than ever…

June 23, 2009 By Dan Thornton

From what I’ve seen, I’ve not the only person in the world to mention the death of someone known globally as Neda.

What interests me is that I’m looking for Western European journalists to either give me context – or to point me towards the people that can, via social media or broadcast media.

Does it matter than the death of Neda reach me via social medial, or that I was the impact without the context? How far do editorial controls each – and how far do we let things shock or appal us in times of tragedy?

The traditional point of contact/context has been the journalist/editor…. How do we judge the line now?

As a former magazine and website journalist, I welcome opinions…where’s the line between shock and awe? Or awareness and indifference?

When do we stop tweeting about it, or stop updating Facebook at make a small part of a difference? And for those journalists – are you telling us how to do it?

It’s not enough to shock us anymore – it’s about to explaining how we can change things….

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Join us…

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter

We only exist to deliver results for your business. So you get fresh Content, expert SEO, engaging Social Media, or a new Website which is right for you – and your customers.

We help you build your brand, reach more customers and increase your revenue

Search

Categories

Creative Commons License
This work by TheWayoftheWeb is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Start growing your business today Contact Us

TheWayoftheWeb

Copyright © 2026· TheWayoftheWeb Ltd. Company Number 08038527. ICO registration: ZB397650