Posts tagged paying for content
A Bold Experiment in Paid Content
Mar 23rd
We are about to witness an extremely important experiment in journalism, marketing and the economics of the Internet.
Last Friday, the 159-year-old New York Times, arguably the nation’s most important newspaper, announced it would be charging a subscription for the online version of its product.
In an email to current subscribers, the newspaper announced a hybrid plan that would still allow non-subscribers to read breaking news:
- On NYTimes.com, any one can view 20 articles each month at no charge. After 20 articles, you will have to subscribe.

- On smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge.
- The Times is offering three digital subscription packages: $15 every four weeks for access to the Web site and a mobile phone app (or $195 for a full year); $20 for Web access and an iPad app ($260 a year); or $35 for an all-access plan ($455 a year).
- New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com
- Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.
My response is, “Hurray!” We need to keep journalism vital in our country and to do that it has to be funded. When my subscription offer hits my inbox this week, I will be the first to subscribe.
The risks in this plan are significant. The company might jeopardize its huge online reach and drive away advertisers, which now represent more than a quarter of the newspaper’s revenues.
Plus, it has already failed at this attempt once before. The Times had experimented with a pay model from 2005 to 2007. That program brought in 227,000 subscribers at $49.95 a year, generating about $10 million in revenue.
But after they commissioned a study to examine how TimesSelect was working, company executives became convinced that restricting access to the site was constricting its potential for more readers and more advertising. When that program ended, traffic to the site almost doubled. It now stands at more than 30 million unique domestic visitors a month.
With the decline of their traditional reader base, this new subscription model is the most urgent development since the advent of the Internet itself.
What’s your take on this? Are people going to pay for content or are they permanently conditioned to find their news and information for free?
Note: This morning Mashable reported on Twitter-based scams individuals are setting up to get around the 20-article limit. Is this enterprising or is this stealing?
Is there really any hope for paid digital content?
Jan 1st
I’ve been involved in a couple interesting scenarios lately involving the idea of paying for digital content.
- I am a contributor to the awesome Content Marketing Institute but customers told CMI that they don’t have the time or budget to pay for more content. Clients need help in actually doing the marketing, so the CMI business model is rapidly adapting to their needs.
- As a subscriber to Marketing Profs for two years, I won’t be renewing my subscription. They still do a good job but I don’t have time to participate in their seminars, which are too similar to free content I can access elsewhere.
- I was approached to work on a project to provide content to a paid forum for small business owners. I am already giving away a lot of valuable personal advice on my blog every day. Would people pay to read what I write?
So as I’m thinking about these situations, along comes new data from Pew Research stating that 65% of internet users have paid for online content. That headline is getting a lot of airplay. Let’s look at the “content” contained in the report and the percentage of adults who paid for it:
- Music: 33 percent
- Software: 33 percent
- Apps: 21 percent
- Games: 19 percent
- A newspaper, magazine, journal article or special report: 18 percent
- Online videos, movies or TV: 16 percent
- Ringtones: 15 percent
- Photos: 12 percent
- Premium or members-only content on a particular website: 11 percent
- E-book: 10 percent
- Podcasts: 7 percent
- Porn: 2 percent
It seems there are big opportunities represented by these numbers, right? Let’s get back to this research in a moment but first turn to the always thought-provoking Mitch Joel, who hypothesizes in his Six Pixels blog that people will pay for content under certain conditions:
- It must be mobile.
- It must be asynchronous.
- It must have added multimedia value (bonus material).
- It must be easy to access.
- It must be easy to download/stream.
- It must do more than simply being a digital version of the traditional platform.
- It must be able to make itself more shareable, findable and social.
I like this list but would add three other critical conditions which radically change the game for anybody with hopes of making money off their content:
1) It must be entertaining – Less than three years ago the most popular videos on YouTube were of brides falling into swimming pools. Now the list is dominated by slickly-produced mini-movies featuring the best brands and entertainers in the world. Can you compete on that level? As the web becomes flooded with content it is going to take some element of sizzle to cut through the clutter in a way powerful enough to attract consumer dollars.
2) It must be scarce — This is the lesson of Marketing Profs. When the content was scarce I paid for it, if it isn’t I won’t. If you write another blog post about the ROI of social media I won’t read it let alone pay for it. But if you write an eBook that offers truly unique advice and insight found nowhere else I might be willing to plunk down a few dineros.
3) It must be targeted to adults – The Pew study was limited to ADULTS who willingly and routinely pay for content. But if the Pew research studied a younger demographic, the results would be vastly different. An example — I have two kids and two step-kids between the ages of 25 and 19. They would not think of paying for content in any form, ever. They’ve shown me how they can access extremely sophisticated and expensive branded software programs for free. This is a generation conditioned to believe that paying for digital content only demonstrates you’re to lazy to figure out how to get it for free.
So while an initial glance at the Pew research might be encouraging and Mitch’s post gushes optimism, these three factors severely limit practical opportunities to scale paid content for most individuals and small businesses. Maybe any business in the long-term.
Of course there are lots of ways to indirectly make money from content through advertising, affiliate marketing and lead generation, but I believe the one hope for making money directly off of content sales resides with micro-payments.
This is an idea that has failed in various forms for 20 years but might finally be taking off with Facebook’s new credit system. It could work like this: Somebody reads a blog post or listens to an original song and is able to click a special “like” button that extracts a few cents from their Paypal account. That would absolutely change the game for monetizing content.
A timely and vital subject for bloggers and marketers is it not? What’s your take on the opportunities? Please contribute your observation or idea in the comment section!
Subscribe to {Grow}
Welcome to {grow}
You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark SchaeferSearch
Categories









