News was released last week that The Independent and Times Online may look to charge for content and are investigating online subscription models in the face of sliding ad revenues.
As previously stated in another post here around large publishers struggling to find ways of maintaining profits & audiences, this issue has become prevelant within the content publishing world.
Last week many other publishers spoke out against implementing such paid content models and instead stated they prefer to focus on online advertising and paid-for products, however, it is a platform already in use by the likes of the Financial Times and Wall St Journal.
So my question is: Is anyone still willing to pay for content?
The general viewpoint at the moment is that charging for content would only suit niche publishers such as the Financial Times, whose content is not available elsewhere, but it would not be suitable to those publishers whose content is not unique and which could be easily substituted.
My personal opinion is that as information is increasingly syndicated, shared & shared again, the corresponding appetite to pay for content or to sign up for a subscription will rapidly decline whether the content is niche or not.
Thoughts?
Is anyone willing to pay for content anymore?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (RSS)
5 Responses to "Is anyone willing to pay for content anymore?" (Leave A Comment)
March 30, 2009 at 3:24 AM
I think this is a really interesting area of conversation and a great time to be having it.
I believe it's split down two trains of thought...
1) Content you can get for free is not worth paying for. This why I download my music, television shows and movies for free and I read news websites not the newspaper.
2) Paying for content is acceptable, but only if it is at great value. The internet and long tail allows content producers to cut out all middle men and therefore significantly reduce prices. Thus people are happy to pay $1 for Radiohead's album. Interestingly, under this model Radiohead are also better off financially.
I actually pay for my Ricky Gervais audiobooks because I love them so much. Likewise for a television series I am romantically involved with I will purchase the DVD.
Great post. :]
March 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I think people will always pay for value: whether monetary or non-monetary.
Crikey I think is a good example of this.
Some great thoughts here.
March 30, 2009 at 3:38 PM
But do you think that non-monetary payment for value could be putting up with lots of advertising to get good content?
i.e. pre rolls, mid rolls, video egg placements etc?
March 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Personally any kind of video-roll makes my skin roll. I think a focus on context and experiential advertising will be more advantageous - I think consumers have a lot more respect for brands when they are the vehicle/platform for value.
March 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM
But if you look at it from the publishers perspective (e.g. Times Online) they make their money from advertisers & advertising spend...therefore from my perspective something like a pre roll is still a very attractive & lucrative ad module to them...
But if you're suggesting that publishers should be the ones helping advertisers/brands to create their own content whilst still manageing to maintain profits then that could be the start of an entirely different (but very interesting) conversation...
Post a Comment