LouisJvR.com | Finding pockets of digital excellence

Indeed this is one of my favourite topics – free content vs. paid for content?

Needless to say this is a very intriguing debate and not at all an easy decision to make for content publishers.

Enter The Economist with this article on The year of the paywall* – an excerpt:

In the coming months Rupert Murdoch, News Corp’s boss, is expected to make good on his promise to introduce paywalls on the websites of the bigger publications in his stable, such as the Times of London and the Sun. Last month Axel Springer, a large German publisher, began charging for some of its newspapers. Variety, a trade publication for Hollywood, has begun demanding money. The New York Times is pondering a similar move. Even the Guardian, a British newspaper that has long been an evangelist for free news online, has launched a paid-for iPhone application (though accessing stories is free once the app has been downloaded). The Economist recently introduced a paywall for the print-edition contents list on its website.

Content publishers (read: media owners) are on the threshold of getting to grips with profiting from digital whilst balancing reader expectations.

I do believe this is an exciting time to be involved in the content business. Scary yes, but exciting nonetheless.

*Paywall is defined as: A feature of a website that only allows access to certain pages or data to paid up subscribers OR… as www.urbandictionary.com puts it: “The techy part of a web system that makes you pay dosh to get to the goodies...”

Some weeks ago I asked the question why content publishers are afraid to charge for content and why aren’t they investing more time and money in exploring ways of making it easier for people to spend money online – particularly making it easy to buy content?

Enter this post by Sean Silverthorne, editor of Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, where Sean indicates that the Era of Free Content is Coming to a Close – let me share snippets of his analysis with you:

Comcast have now decided, after much experimenting with sites such as Hulu and content subscription models that you, my friends, will pay for most of the content they create. It won’t be fee or free. It will be fee, with some free.

The New York Times is considering tiered pricing for “gold” and “silver” packages, which would supplement basic news coverage with behind-the-scenes interviews, product discounts and even previews of upcoming news stories.  Expect other national and perhaps even regional papers to follow suit if the Times finds success.

Hulu CEO Jason Kilar hinted to the NYT recently that his site, which streams television programming with some ads for free to viewers, is likely to experiment with a subscription channel. “We never aspired to be Hulu.org,” Kilar told the New York Times, referring to the popular domain used by nonprofits. Note that as part of its deal for NBC, Comcast will also acquire a third of Hulu, partnering with Fox and ABC.

Comcast, Viacom and other operators are at work developing “authentication systems” that will allow their subscribers, after being verified, to access streams of their popular shows. This is essentially a move to pressure TV networks and Internet channels from putting cable-developed content over the air or on the Internet for free.

Sean refers to results from a recent survey:

According to a nine-country survey of 5,000 people by the Boston Consulting Group, U.S. consumers would pay $3 per month while Italians would pony up $7.

I ask you once more content publishers – why the bottleneck?

Love your work Sean!

Imagine a world where consumers are as comfortable to spend virtual money, as they are comfortable spending “tangible” money i.e. offline.

If you where a content publisher of some sorts, how would this change your thinking of monetizing your presence?

Would an advertising-based business model be your first consideration and consequently primary source of income?

If your answer is “ka-ching” or something in that line… then isn’t consumers willingness to use money online, comfortably, with-out hesitation, the bottleneck?

Doesn’t that mean publishers (read: media groups) should invest significant time and money in exploring ways of making it easier for people to spend money online?

Educating them.

Building trust.

In theory it is easier to spend credits/points than it is spending cold hard cash.

In theory I’d rather then trade virtually than offline.

Why are publishers scared to charge for content?

Is it because they think people won’t be willing to pay for content?

Why aren’t they willing?

Why the bottleneck?