It is easy to find “news” on the Internet for the cost of
Wi-Fi access, or even for free in public access points. Sure a lot of it is
“opinion” or a certain slant to the news, but at least you learn about what is
happening in the world we live in, and having access to it should not be
restricted. Yet that is exactly what is happening on websites run by major
newspapers with shrinking advertising revenue.
For example, while the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer is now a website-only concern, and has technically
“free” and full access to its content now that its payroll and overhead is
considerably reduced, the Seattle Times
continues to maintain a print edition at apparently considerable expense
despite its slim production. I suppose that 75 cents isn’t much to spend for a
daily, but it does seem like a lot for one or two stories of interest, mainly
of concern to those who might be significantly impacted personally.
The Times also
runs a digital edition. Its content used to be free as well; today, all that is
free is the homepage. Click on a story link and you are told that you must
either purchase a print subscription, or pay 99 cents a week for full website
access. Now, I suppose one might say that anyone who refuses to spend a measly
99 cents a week for news access is just being a cheapskate. But I don’t even
like the Times and its politics, and
with almost every major newspaper now charging for access, there is certainly
better options to spend one’s money (say, the New York Times or Washington
Post). If I want the latest salacious local gossip, I can always look at
the front page of the Seattle Times,
in the Seattle Weekly, or the KOMO
television news website.
Why are large newspapers charging web surfers for access to
news? Because digital advertising revenue has not been able to cover the cost
of print edition overhead. The belief is that if access to website news is
free, than fewer people will subscribe to or purchase the print edition. By
either requiring web access be contingent on either a fee or a print
subscription, newspaper publishers hope to increase revenue by both methods.
There has been some evidence that this is working, and
although the reasons why this strategy has been put in place is still in
evidence. According to the Newspaper Association of America, Circulation
revenue actually rose 3.7 percent in 2013, to nearly $11 billion. But total
revenue was off 2.6 percent, down to $37.6 billion, of which $23.6 billion was
advertising revenue, including $17.3 billion from print and $3.4 billion from
digital. Both print and classified advertising continue to see dramatic
declines, while digital advertising revenue grew only 1.5 percent for
newspapers, compared to 17 percent for online business overall.
Some say that the fee for access model amounts to business
“suicide” for newspapers engaging in it—that Internet users will refuse to be
blackmailed, and find their news elsewhere. On the other hand, one can
understand the concerns of newspaper publishers; after all, they are not in the
news business for free.
But the problem is how far will this go? Will CNN start
charging for access to its website? Will all major news organizations start
charging for access? Will there come a time when news is restricted to only
those who can pay for it? Especially when such broadcast entities as Fox News
and sometimes CNN are not providing you a true picture of the facts?
No comments:
Post a Comment