Would you pay for on-line content?
Obviously, your answer is that you would pay untold millions to access Mamamia. That goes without saying. But the issue of paying for online content just refuses to go away and while it's something that's often debated by me off-line, we've never actually discussed it here.
As the BBC reported online (for free) last year:
Mr Murdoch said he was "satisfied" that the company could produce "significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content".
"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added. "But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media. Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said.
In order to stop readers from moving to the huge number of free news websites, Mr Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content "better and differentiate it from other people".
And as Margaret Simons from Crikey reported yesterday ($150 for an annual subscription):
"It’s going to be the media issue of the new decade: whether or not Rupert Murdoch can succeed in his plans to persuade newspaper readers to pay for content online.
It’s a grand experiment, with success or failure likely to determine a great deal of the future of journalism.
Australian researchers working with the international World Internet Project have conducted their first survey on whether and how much Australians will pay for content online. The results have been released to Crikey, and they are depressing for Rupert.
Seven out of 10 Australians would not consider paying anything at all. Young people were particularly against the idea, with three quarters saying they would not pay.
It gets worse.
News junkies -- those who turn to the web for local or national news several times a day -- are actually the people least prepared to pay for online news, according to what they told the researchers. Yet those who turn to the web for news once a day are the most likely to pay. Go figure. It should be said that the numbers or respondents involved are small, so the results for this question should be treated with caution.
The survey also looked at willingness of readers to consume large amounts of text online, and found that those who were prepared to read long articles and essays were slightly more likely to consider paying for them -- but still under half were prepared to pay.
This suggests that ease of reading could be important, and is relevant to the reports that Rupert’s plans include a "cool new toy" or exclusive deal with one of the e-readers shortly to hit the market.
In late 2009, 800 Australian internet users were asked how much they would be prepared to pay to read an online newspaper, given that a daily print newspaper cost about $1.50.
The detailed results, with cross tabulations for age, locality and degree of news-junkiness, will be on my blog later today.
Now, surveys only tell part of the story. It is one thing to ask readers in the abstract whether they would pay for news, when at the moment they are used to getting it for free. How they would actually behave if much of their favoured material became otherwise unobtainable is another issue.
The "cool new toy" is also likely to have an impact. We know that people are willing to pay small amounts for data that is available elsewhere for free, if it is delivered to them on a mobile.
In the Australian context, the fact that a "cover-all" news service from the ABC will remain free is likely to be a key factor, just as the BBC has become News Corporation’s enemy No.1 in Europe.
On the other hand, another survey by the Boston Consulting Group, gleefully reported by The Australian last year, focused on the kind of stuff people might consider paying for. It came up with slightly more encouraging results, suggesting that almost half of Australian internet users would be willing to pay a small monthly amount for news that was either unique, or timely -- such as a news alert service.
However, even this survey concluded that the amounts people were prepared to pay would have only a "negligible" impact on overall industry revenue.
The surveys could all be wrong, of course, and Rupert could be right. We also know that he is not planning to merely replicate newspaper content online, but to offer targeted packages of niche content. This is bound to change the picture.
Nevertheless, at this early stage of the story, you would have to say that the signs are all against Rupert. If he overcomes and succeeds, then the history books might well represent the paywall push as the most significant and audacious part of his already incredible career."
All too often this issue is made out to be about Rupert Murdoch and News Ltd, media behemouths who do not really inspire a huge amount of empathy or goodwill among the general population who feel that Rupert is rich e-bloody-nuff.
But it's not just about Rupert. It's about all the independents (hi!) who don't have the revenues and infrastructure from old media assets to fund new media ones the way Rupert and News Ltd can.
This is not a sob story from me so don't think I'm coming cap in hand. You can see some ads on this website and yes, we have begun to earn some revenue around here. For more than two years I didn't earn a cent from Mamamia and we are still not in profit but that has been my decision to launch and maintain my own site. So Don't Cry For Me Argentina.
I wanted to start a website. I wanted to connect with others. I wanted an outlet for my writing. I wanted to create a community of smart, interesting and supportive people. Becoming Bill Gates was not my main motivation.
My advice to anyone who wants to start a blog is always "Don't do it for the money because you will be disappointed. And poor."
However. Having said all that, I do feel that what I do here and what I write is worth something. I wouldn't write my newspaper column for free. I wouldn't do my public speaking for free. You wouldn't do YOUR job for free either I'm guessing.
But the truth is that the advertising model (particuarly for big news organisations) is not sustainable. Providing content - decent content - costs money. It's an investment of time and resources on the part of the content provider. There are a bunch of other reasons why the free model isn't sustainable for most people, most of which are of no interest to you because you have more content - FOR FREE - than you can possibly read in a lifetime.
Why would you pay for it? Good question. I don't have the answer. I certainly wouldn't pay for everything I read online although some of it I would. If I had to. Maybe it would be a relief. A time saver. Maybe it would make me more selective about what I chose to pay for instead of drowning in a sea of free crap (which is what going online sometimes feels like). Quality not quantity.
I will say though, imagine if someone had told you 10 years ago that you'd be paying up to $4 for a bottle of WATER. The same stuff that you can currently get free from a tap.
You would have laughed. Now look around you and tell me if there's a plastic bottle of water nearby. Same with music. A few years ago when we were all merrily downloading songs for free from Napster etc, the thought of PAYING for music was a joke. Not laughing anymore. Particularly when I look at my itunes bill.
Even now, I know I could download TV shows for free via bit torrent but I don't. I do it the legit way via itunes. Does that make me a nerd? A good citizen? Eligible for some copyright karma?
Currently, the internet relies on a huge amount of goodwill. I do not pay for content that appears here that's written by others. Like me, they have their reasons for wanting to access the Mamamia audience. Similarly, I have written for other sites which largely exist on free editorial content. One of which - The Punch - is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
We're all working for our own motivations....whether we write to increase our profile, our Twitter followers, traffic to our own websites via hyperlinks or to build a CV of published work on reputable sites.
But ultimately is it sustainable? Why have we become so accustomed to paying nothing for something we supposedly value?
What do you think? Is there anything you'd pay for online? News? Editorial? Nude pictures of the cast of Mad Men?
And if you had to pay for what you read online, how would it change the way you use the internet?
