In the spirit of the season, I hereby give thanks that there is such an open and vivid discussion about the core issue of monetizing online content.\u00c2\u00a0 If we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d had this kind of focus on actually taking the utopian dreams of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all content, everywhere, all the time\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and making it work back when I was in my Web 1.0\/dot-bomb startup days, we might not have cratered so spectacularly.<\/p>\n
So this week, we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve got a rising level of chatter about Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s media properties banning Google links in favor of getting paid by Microsoft\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Bing search engine, the BBC throws a wrench into paid content in England (and perhaps everywhere else), the idea of sprinkling porn onto newspaper websites to see what happens is floated, and what orcs and dwarves can teach newspapers.<\/p>\n
Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s bluffing about Google to try to extract money from Microsoft\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s deep pockets<\/strong><\/p>\n This somewhat NSFW (lots of cussing) take on Murdoch is by someone familiar with the way that Murdoch papers like The Sun always seem to pick the winner of an electoral campaign.\u00c2\u00a0 Not because they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re so influential that the person they anoint goes on to win \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but because Murdoch is canny at figuring out who the top dog in any fight is, and busies himself sucking up to them as soon as possible to maximize his profits. http:\/\/www.techcrunch.com\/2009\/11\/28\/rupert-murdoch-google-nsfw\/<\/a><\/p>\n By convincing Bing that there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a chance he might drop Google \u00e2\u20ac\u201c for the right price \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Murdoch suddenly has a new partner falling over itself to give him prominence in their search results, on his terms. Sure enough, Microsoft has just agreed<\/a> to help fund the next-generation search crawling protocol, ACAP<\/a>, which gives content owners like News Corp more control over how their news is indexed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (snip) And that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s where we see Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s real genius: he has managed to use his illusion of influence to get all of these benefits without having to commit himself to anything, or expose himself in any way. There is no way in hell that News Corp content will vanish from Google and yet with every headline asking whether Google should be worried or suggesting that other companies might follow Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s lead, his image as a kingmaker is strengthened.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n McClatchy starts sending out notices, but still claims paywalls are not imminent<\/strong><\/p>\n Talk about mixed signals. The terms of services for its websites are all being changed, but that change doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually mean anything is changing. Except, of course, if it does. If they eventually decided to charge for content, they will clearly notify the readers, but in the meantime, please make coming to the site a habit and would it kill ya to click on the ads now & again? http:\/\/www.editorandpublisher.com\/eandp\/news\/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004041770<\/a><\/p>\n A Perpetual Recession for Newspapers<\/strong><\/p>\n Rick Edmonds, who writes The Biz Blog for Poynter, says that news organizations have lost $1.6 billion that was used to cover news, and that even when the economy recovers, newspapers won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t: http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/2009\/11\/18\/newspapers-advertising-rick-edmonds-poynter-business-media-edmonds.html<\/a> So maybe we should all just learn from the porn industry \u00e2\u20ac\u201c or maybe even start putting porn on our sites, to see if maybe that will get people to pay for our content.<\/p>\n The building of micropayment systems, like the one being developed by Steve Brill, is a hotly debated issue. Wouldn’t it be helpful for this kind of system to be established first with Web content that really drives users–say, pornography?<\/strong><\/p>\n Sure, but that’s not an option for newspapers. There have been experiments with these kinds of systems in Denmark, where several companies tried it at the same time. The problem was that they couldn’t answer peoples’ security concerns. The experiments turned out to be a dud.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Knock yourselves out,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Google yawns. <\/strong><\/p>\n The head of newspaper industry b\u00c3\u00aate noir Google News says in an interview that publishers are free to do whatever they want with their content.\u00c2\u00a0 Google is apparently willing to work with publishers to do whatever the publishers demand with their content \u00e2\u20ac\u201c list it, ignore it, work with it to implement a paywall, whatever. http:\/\/searchengineland.com\/josh-cohen-of-google-news-on-paywalls-partnerships-working-with-publishers-29881<\/a> The easy confidence that is displayed here is the result of Google\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s near-monopoly position in the market<\/p>\n Removing News Would Have Negligible Effect on Google<\/strong><\/p>\n This study by German research company TRG shows that even if all news was taken off Google, that would still leave about 95% of Google traffic intact for them to monetize. http:\/\/paidcontent.co.uk\/article\/419-research-removing-news-would-have-negligible-effect-on-google\/<\/a><\/p>\n Financially, then, Google doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t depend on the publishers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 content. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153In comparison, if you detracted Wikipedia from the results, 13 percent of the number-one results would be gone,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said Christoph Burseg, the CEO of TRG, the research company that ran the survey.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n BBC: We won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t charge for online news<\/strong><\/p>\n Now this has got to be raising Mr. Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s blood pressure a bit. Online news paywalls only work when the competition plays along too (see the case study I did on the disastrous experiment of El Tiempo in Spain, & how they lost their market share to a formerly laughable upstart).<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/media\/2009\/nov\/24\/bbc-wont-charge-online-news<\/a> A more interesting discussion is brewing, about what to do about content that is not just re-purposed BBC news, but that is specifically produced for the online editions. Viz:<\/p>\n However, Lyons also questioned the future of content created for online that is not directly related to specific BBC programmes, asking, “where should the boundary be drawn” between this and “the online expression or extension of BBC programming”?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wall St. Journal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s price to go Bing-only: $15 million<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s been an increasing amout of space devoted to what Murdoch is going to do to start moving all his content behind paywalls, and away from the hated Google \u00e2\u20ac\u0153parasites.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Business Insider backwards-engineers the numbers that de-listing from Google would cost the WSJ, and comes up with $10-15 mill. http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/microsoft-should-pay-up-for-exclusive-access-to-the-journal-2009-11<\/a><\/p>\n If Microsoft really wanted to induce Murdoch to ditch Google, it would therefore only cost $10 – $15 million. Maybe more if Murdoch wanted a premium. Considering Steve Ballmer said he’d spend $5.5 billion to $11 billion<\/a> over the next five years on Bing, this is nothing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n More on the Murdoch-Google fight \u00e2\u20ac\u201c seems the Denver Post and Dallas Morning News may follow in his footsteps<\/strong><\/p>\n Interesting that Dean Singleton has come out and said that readers in Pennsylvania and California will get hit with paywalls starting next year, and the DMN is upgrading itself to a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153definitely maybe\u00e2\u20ac\u009d status. http:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/apps\/news?pid=20601109&sid=aRVlZEzbmNu0<\/a> A further article from the Independent about what publishers in the UK are thinking on this issue http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/media\/press\/british-press-split-in-two-by-wappingrsquos-great-gamble-1825806.html<\/a> and http:\/\/paidcontent.co.uk\/article\/419-has-the-times-got-it-right-with-its-online-charging-plan\/<\/a><\/p>\n And finally, a meditation on whether Murdoch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s plan for paywalls will run afoul of anti-trust laws http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/media\/2009\/nov\/05\/murdoch-pay-wall-anti-trust<\/a><\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Not a cat\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s chance in hell\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of successfully charging for online content<\/strong><\/p>\n The CEO of the Future Publishing Group said that there is no hope for paywalls for general news because of the ubiquity of free models, particularly in the UK market. http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/media\/2009\/nov\/26\/charging-mainstream-news-future-chief<\/a> However, Future are experimenting with specialized and niche content to see what the market will bear.<\/p>\n The group has taken a bullish approach to pricing its print magazine titles, with an average cover price of \u00c2\u00a35, up from \u00c2\u00a34.70 this time last year.<\/p>\n She cited a promotion of the new album from former Guns N’ Roses guitarist Slash, which is being exclusively attached to a special edition of Classic Rock magazine for \u00c2\u00a314.99.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Americans less willing to pay for online news<\/strong><\/p>\n The New York Times finds that less than half the people in the U.S. are willing to pay for online news, and even at that, they will only shell out $3. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2009\/11\/16\/business\/media\/16paywall.html?_r=2&ref=media<\/a> Apparently, there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s some kind of fundamental disconnect going on at the NY Times, between top management hell-bent on charging for content, and the weary soldiers in the trenches, protesting that this will not work, has not worked, will never work, and producing article after article that seemingly is not read by their own bosses.<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Consumer willingness and intent to pay is related to the availability of a rich amount of free content,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said John Rose, a senior partner and head of the group\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s global media practice. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153There is more, better, richer free in the United States than anywhere else.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If readers are willing to pay \u00e2\u20ac\u201c they prefer micropayments and only pennies<\/strong><\/p>\n The analysts at Continental Research found that 63% will not pay for news, leaving only 37% who will \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and at that, only willing to pay about 10 cents per article. http:\/\/www.continentalresearch.com\/media_centre\/press_releases\/?ID=149<\/a> More about this at http:\/\/paidcontent.co.uk\/article\/419-research-readers-favour-news-micropayments-but-theyll-only-pay-pennies\/<\/a><\/p>\n James Myring, Head of Media at Continental Research says \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The amounts may sound small, but it is better to get a lot of people making small one off payments, than virtually no-one paying a higher subscription. For a comparison, think of the mobile industry, profiting from lots of small payments for text messages.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n London Times Editor says online paywalls are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fight of our lives\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/strong><\/p>\n There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the by-now predictable bashing of Google and the other supposed \u00e2\u20ac\u0153parasites,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d but the one actual realization is buried at the end of the article. http:\/\/www.pressgazette.co.uk\/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44649&c=1<\/a><\/p>\n Harding said the Times wanted to improve its relationship with its loyal customers through home delivery and through its recently launched Times+ membership programme.<\/p>\n He said: “Historically, newspapers have treated their best customers worst and their worst customers best.<\/p>\n “We give the paper away to people who could not care less and we pay little or no attention to people who love it and read it every day.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n