Following the news that the New York Times is going to start charging for its content using a ‘metered’ system, meaning they will “offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number.” – like they do at the Financial Times. It all kicks off in 2011. The Guardian News and Media has attacked this current trend and the belief that it will solve the revenue slump from online advertising  as ‘crazy’. Is it?

YES: Steve Buttry gave a good view on why this is is the case; Umair Haque has the best reasoning as to why:  content itself and how it is presented to us has to change so as to justify the value of news, particularly to consumers, whose needs are constantly evolving. Otherwise, they will simply drive readers into the welcoming arms of the community news sites, group blogs and grassroots news agents.

NO: Professionals I believe will pay. The Economist, the Financial Times and niche periodicals that have access to a specific form of knowledge that their competitors don’t, will be able to justify erecting paywalls. They’re already finding ways to maximise commuity interaction, which I imagine may be a preparation for changes in payment models. If this trend continues (which i believe it will) it’ll be a test of whose content is truly valued by its audiences and whose isn’t. If a paper like the Sun wants to charge (which doesn’t have that niche content that Umair speaks of), they’ll need to create other incentives, like an online members club with giveaways and gifts to go with their subscription.

Tweet This Post