Results matching “free subscripti”

One of the latest products to appear on the market for newspaper publishers looking to improve their revenue is Circulate, from new start-up CircLabs. The Editors Weblog spoke to co-founder and executive vice president Martin Langeveld, former newspaper editor and executive who now also writes for Nieman Journalism Lab, about the project.

The CircLabs team decided to look for a user-centric solution to monetise online content through improving the user news experience, as opposed to what Langeveld sees as publisher-centric solutions that focus on how to charge users for content. Charging users for content could indeed be incorporated into Circulate, but he does not see it as the main source of revenue. Rather, what Circulate hopes to do is essentially make it easier for people to find the news they are interested in, hence encouraging them to read more and therefore increasing traffic to and engagement time on newspaper websites, offering greater advertising opportunities.

The Circulate concept evolved out of research carried out by Bill Densmore at the Reynolds Institute of the University of Missouri into a project he called the Information Valet. This, Langeveld explained, is a more "comprehensive and very complex system" and Circulate hopes to be a starting point for something similar. The founding CircLabs team consists of four: Langeveld and Densmore plus Jeff Vander Clute and Joe Bergeron. The University of Missouri offered initial funding and Langeveld is confident that the company will soon announce its first round of seed funding, which would include investment from the industry and private investors as well as from the university.

What Circulate actually is

As the consumer will see it, Circulate will consist of a narrow strip that will appear within the user's browser window that will be branded and recommend journalistic content throughout the user's time online. The bar will be along the top of the window and generally narrow enough to include one line of type, though would have the ability to expand when necessary. A small programme must be downloaded to install the strip, but a user can log in to their account on any computer that has the programme. There will also be a destination URL that users can access on computers on which they cannot download the software, and the team plans to develop applications for smartphones, and offer email alerts.

When the user installs it, it will ask them some questions about them and about their interests and preferences. The user is not obliged to enter any information, but the more that they do, "the better Circulate can bring content to you," Langeveld explained. He added that his team understands how important privacy is to consumers and stressed that Circulate will be very clear with regards to the amount of information it stores about its users and will give them an easy option to access or delete this.  "It won't just be buried in one of those user agreements that everybody just clicks through," Langeveld clarified.

The programme will also track your movements online and make recommendations for content based on these and the information you provide. Article suggestions will appear as links in the Circulate strip, and it might expand to offer the user three or so recommendations on a specific topic, or to ask or answer a user's question. As the technology develops, it will be able to gather new applications, so additional icons might appear on the bar that could offer a user access to their Twitter feed, for example.

A home base for users

Users will sign up for and download Circulate via a 'home base' which is likely to be their local newspaper. The Circulate strip will be branded according to the home base, so this newspaper brand will 'travel' with the user throughout their online experience. The user would be free to change their home base at will. Eventually the local newspaper, as a Circulate partner, would be able to sell advertising and do other kinds of marketing and promotion through the strip.

How it can make money for publishers

Although Langeveld does not believe that revenue from charging users will be "more than the smallest fraction of the total potential of Circulate," it will be possible to do that within the Circulate framework. If newspapers decide that they do have premium content which is unique and valuable enough that people are willing to pay for it, Circulate will facilitate this through a universal subscription to all multiple papers' premium content, or on a per item basis.

However, as stated above, Circulate's main aim is to increase traffic to newspaper websites. Langeveld pointed out that his team's research shows that in the US, web users spend only about 1.2% of their time online on newspaper websites, and traffic to newspaper sites accounts for only 1% of page views. "That really is the challenge for newspapers, to increase that percentage," said Langeveld. And Circulate hopes to do this by "constantly recommending journalistic content from newspapers and other news outlets the other 99% of that time."

The possibility for the papers acting as homebases to brand the strip also "has value" for local papers, according to Langeveld, as it means that their brand travels round the web with the user whenever they are online, thus constantly reminding them of their relationship with the paper. Circulate also intends eventually to include advertising on the bar itself, although the format has not yet been developed. Langeveld believes that there are opportunities for both national and local advertising. There would be the possibility to target users and therefore create more value, and participating papers could sell space to local businesses. He sees this as a good selling opportunity: "now you can reach our readers all the time when they're online rather than just the one or two percent that they're on our site."

Will it work?

Software development has already started and the Associated Press has agreed to allow Circulate access to its content. Langeveld confirmed that the company is planning a beta rollout with a group of newspapers and users in autumn. Could it be the solution that newspapers have been waiting for?

Many publishers seem to be concretely moving towards charging online, and others seem to be contemplating it as a solution to their financial difficulties and in an attempt to restore value to news and prevent it from becoming a commodity. The fact that Circulate would be able to incorporate this is thus a point in its favour. When asked if it could be compatible with Journalism Online, a start-up aiming to facilitate charging for content that has reportedly been in talks with many publishers, Langeveld said that it is something that his team has not explored, but that it was "certainly possible."

Increasing engagement time does indeed seem to make sense, although in terms of monetising it means that newspapers are still dependent on the advertising market. It is clearly something that newspapers should be working on themselves or through companies like Apture that try to keep readers on news sites through multimedia enhancements, but it does seem that Circulate can help in actually getting readers onto a site. Persuading readers to sign up could be tough, most likely requiring an aggressive marketing strategy, and the CircLabs team is wise to anticipate privacy concerns. Assuming that users do sign up, it is hard to say how many people will click through links and how often, but it seems as if it could well contribute to an increase in traffic. 

The New York Times Co., has suggested that it will charge readers a fee to access to the NYT pages via mobile phones. The charges for mobile news will be put in place before any similar system is applied to the paper's news websites.

The publishers explained their decisions in an interview in New York. Martin Nisenholtz said that charging fees for access to news pages on mobile phones made sense because the mobile platform offered less space for advertising than the web. 

The French government is to give all 18 to 24-year-olds a free newspaper once a week for a year as part of 600 million euro aid package for the press. The concept was originally outlined in January, when the government announced its plan to offer French teenagers a year-long subscription to the newspaper of their choice, commencing on the  day of their 18th birthday. The extension of the age range was  announced yesterday at the Ministry of Culture meeting of the États généraux de la presse.

The idea has proven to be a particularly controversial component of the government's package of financing and reform formulated to restore the health of the French printed press.  The Sarkozy administration has dedicated an exceptional 200 million euros a year, for a 3-year period, to aid the printed press. The Culture Ministry announced during the meeting that more than half of this year's budget had already been designated.

A lobbying campaign in the UK has called for the government to up the penalties for online filesharing, a practice in which over 7million UK residents regularly partake. The campaign, echoing that of the French government, takes an economical outlook, claiming that illegal filesharing is costing thousands of jobs in the UK and is denting the Kingdom's already slumping GDP. Is this a similar phenomenon to that which is causing UK and Western newspapers to shed staff at an unprecedented rate? Can newspapers, whose bottom line many consider to be suffering from digital content, learn from the plight of the music and entertainment industries affected by filesharing?

Yes and no. 

In a move to bulk up its digital offerings and earn some digital revenues, USA Today will launch a paid-for e-Edition in August. Editor-in-Chief, John Hillkirk, at a breakfast introducing the paper's new Publisher David Hunke, spoke of how they were "not absolutely convinced that [paid online content] works," but how USA Today would be "extraordinarily bullish" when it comes to mobile apps and devices.

The August launch of the e-Edition, which will cost $10 per month, could be just a first step in positioning the paper for a what Hunke predicted an "explosion" in the market for portable reading devices.

Over the course of the last six months, the Spanish media has lobbied the government hoping the state will be able to give the impoverished press a much needed boost. After many months of deliberation, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's administration has finally come forward with a proposal for newspapers, but editors are unimpressed.

"It [the proposal] fails to meet expectations, does not provide an answer to the needs of the sector and, most importantly, does not even begin to seriously tackle the problem," said Pilar de Yarza, president of the Asociación de Editores de Diarios Españoles (AEDE), speaking to El Mundo. She added: "The measures do not include a structural plan for an industry which is the guarantor of rights and liberties; they do not remotely compare to the assistance provided in other countries."

It is becoming increasingly clear that a proportion of general news content is going to be put behind some kind of a pay wall in upcoming months. Several publishers have expressed their intentions to start charging, and several third parties want to help them do it. Journalists don't seem to want it, it seems pretty unlikely that readers would want it, so how are publishers going to succeed? Can it restore value to good journalism which is increasingly becoming a commodity? The Editors Weblog takes a look at some of the different services on offer and strategies being considered.

Journalism Online

First, Journalism Online, a start-up founded in April by industry experts Steve Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery, has taken facilitating charging for online content as one of its core goals. Brill made a presentation at the NAA-organised newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28 at which Journalism Online's mission was stated as enabling "news organizations to restore the optimal mix of circulation and advertising revenue necessary to finance original reporting and editing" hence giving them the chance to "realize the revenue they deserve--and can command--from readers and distributors for their digital content."

Journalism Online is marketing its proposal as an e-commerce platform. The idea is that it would make premium content from multiple publishers easily accessible to readers and allow annual, monthly subscriptions, day passes or single articles. There will also be all-you-can-read bundling options. Publishers will decide what content they want to charge for, how much to charge (though it is unclear how all-you-can-read prices will be decided) and how to charge. In the presentation, Brill suggests $50-60 a year and $5-6 a month for small to large city papers, but he stressed that this was an arbitrary choice and clearly the price would depend on how much content the publisher put behind the pay wall. He had previously suggested $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription.

The company maintains that implementing its system will not lead to a substantial loss in traffic or ad revenue, claiming that papers would be able to keep 88% of page views and 91% of ad revenue, as any paid content would be part of a hybrid model. In his examples, Brill demonstrates how he believes a paper could essentially double its income. Brill has also stressed that Journalism Online will incorporate lots of sampling. He told Nieman Lab's Zachery Seward that Journalism Online's assumptions are that 5-10% of current monthly unique visitors will be willing to pay for content; that 95 percent of those paying customers will choose subscriptions over micropayments; and that after subscribing, those readers will view 30-40 percent more pages than non-paying readers.

Overall, the company seems to be presenting its service as a chance for newspapers to focus on their best customers, offering a premium service to those who are prepared to pay. At the Chicago meeting, Journalism Online also emphasised the advantages of paid online content in terms of preserving the print product: it is "about the value proposition of print... about print subscriber acquisition and retention costs."

ViewPass

Another third party service was presented at the NAA-organised meeting in Chicago: ViewPass. It is the brainchild of Alan Mutter and Ridgely Evers, and could be implemented in 9 months at a cost of $6 million. The idea is that newspaper readers would be required to register once with ViewPass and it would then track their activity across participating websites.

Like Journalism Online, it would aim to offer readers the chance to purchase premium online content from multiple sources, with potential for subscriptions, micropayments and bundling. Essentially, the ways in which it differs is that ViewPass would be industry-owned, giving publishers the chance to (hopefully) share profits in the business itself, and it most crucially it would allow users to 'pay' for their content with their time or their information instead of with cash, because of their increased value to advertisers. In fact, ViewPass would focus on presenting readers that were attractive to advertisers for highly targeted ads. Mutter himself is not enthusiastic about charging for much online content, suggesting to Nieman Lab that it would only work for specialist content.

Circlabs

The creation of another start up was announced the day before the Chicago meeting: CircLabs, founded by Bill Densmore, Jeffrey Vander Clute, Martin Langeveld and Joe Bergeron. Its first product, code-named Circulate, aims to "offer a solution" to publishers who are experimenting with micropayments and subscriptions, suggesting that they should charge for content which is "both scarce in nature and of high utility to a segment of the audience." CircLabs is also focussed on developing opportunities for "high-value" advertising revenue, and plans to incorporate personalised news services. Further details are yet to appear.

Efforts of individual publishers

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has announced that all the company's newspapers would be charging within a year. It is looking at bundling content, according to chief digital officer Jonathan Miller, such as putting all the media conglomerate's New York-based content into one subscription package. One of the company's prime assets, the Wall Street Journal, is proof that paid premium content does work, although of a specifically financial nature. The paper is to expand its paid online options, with plans to introduce micropayments later this year along with a further level of premium subscriptions. Murdoch suggested that the company wants to "test" a pay model on some of its stronger properties first, and there has been speculation that the Sunday Times will be among these. The paid online content debate, although definitely present in the UK, has not been as strong as across the Atlantic, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reaction such a move would provoke.

MediaNews Group is planning to charge online under the belief that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." A memo to staff from CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic suggested that a part-paid strategy is in the works, and made it clear that the company is intending to charge for existing content rather than for new products or services.

The New York Times is apparently looking at two different ways in which it could charge for online content. The first would be somewhat similar to the Financial Times' model, whereby readers could surf the site without charge until a page-view or word limit were reached, when a 'metre' would start running and it would charge a user for the rest of their time spent. (The FT allows 10 free articles per user per month, then demands a subscription.) This would have the advantage of not putting specific content behind a paywall, and therefore not angering journalists.

The other option is a 'membership' scheme: readers would donate money and subsequently be invited into a "New York Times community," which would offer them free merchandise and other benefits. Possibly a tiered membership scheme could be implemented. When these proposals were discussed, Bill Keller told staff that a decision would be made by the end of June. The NYT is wary following its failed TimesSelect experience back in 2007 and seems determined to find a solution that will not damage its significant ad revenue.

Potential obstacles: search and antitrust

Currently many people find their news through search engines such as Google, and for articles to get good Google rankings and appear higher up in search results, they cannot be behind a paywall. Newspapers must strive to find an appropriate solution to this when they start charging: the Wall Street Journal's tactic of allowing its paid content to be accessed free via Google is clearly not fair to its paying customers, and is a definite deterrent to potential subscribers.

Antitrust regulations in the US effectively prevent publishers from coming to a joint agreement on when and how they should start charging for content. At the newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28, an antitrust lawyer was present to make sure all the discussion was legal. Poynter analyst Rick Edmonds suggested that the use of a third party "vendor" such as Journalism Online could be the solution to these concerns. Journalism Online has taken on David Boies and Ted Olson for antitrust advice.

So, is it going to work? And how?

Undoubtedly, implementing paid content is going to be a considerable challenge and is likely to involve substantial experimentation. Newspapers need to consider what exactly they would want to charge for, for example whether they could create a new paid service or put what is currently free behind a pay wall. It seems as if it would be easier to persuade people to pay for something new, rather than telling them they have to start paying for something previously free. But then people might decide that they are happy with what they get now and that they do not want to pay for anything extra. A paper with a highly developed website such as the New York Times could possibly offer basic news free but keep its interactive graphics and other more innovative content for its premium customers.

As yet, Journalism Online seems to be ahead of the pack with regards to third party services. No papers have publicly signed on but Brill told Seward that he had already spoken to about half of those at the Chicago meeting. In terms of connections and credibility of its founders, Journalism Online has a head start. ViewPass and CircLabs do seem to be onto something, however, with their focus on offering consumers as targets for higher-revenue advertising and effectively allowing them to pay for their news by looking at ads. Could these companies coexist, or is there only room for one?

A crucial factor which should not be underestimated in any attempt to charge online is ease of use for the consumer. People will be far more likely to part with their cash if doing so is simple and straightforward. For this reason, sign-in-once and all-you-can-read offers are likely to appeal. And once people are paying, the level of service should reflect this: good journalism presented attractively and accessibly. An element of personalisation would also seem worth paying for.

Can paid online content 'save' newspapers? If Journalism Online's figures are correct, it looks like it could make a significant difference to a newspaper's fortunes. The next few months will be telling in terms of experimentation and competition between proposals, but it will take some years for the definitive answer to this question to be realised.

The I Want Media's The Future of Media: 2009 discussion held at NYU yesterday gathered the most renowned names in the new media world to present their visions of the future of information media.  Present were Gawker chief Nick Denton, Jack Dorsey, cofounder and chairman of Twitter; Bonnie Fuller, creator of Us Weekly and founder of Bonnie Fuller Media; Alan Murray, deputy managing editor and executive editor online at The Wall Street Journal; and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.

Perhaps of most interest to have come from the exchange were Denton's statements about journalists' attitudes, their inaptitude for internet blogging and the pay wall debate which is currently dominating news provision dialogue.

The American Press Institute prepared a report for last week's newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago in which it assessed the options for paid content and "fair use" fees from Google and other aggregators. Entitled Newspaper Economic Action Plan, the report concluded that newspapers "can make the leap from an advertising-centered to an audience-centered enterprise," and should do so as soon as possible.

The "integrated, five-point" plan provides "models and recommendations for the migration of online content from free to paid" which are "intended for the development of consensus, protocols and technology." The API does not see paid content as the only revenue source that will save journalism, but advocates establishing "a true value for news content online by charging for it" in the first part of its plan: the True Value Doctrine. It recommends that news organisations immediately start a "massive" period of experimentation to find the best way to do this. The report explores three options: micropayments, subscriptions and a hybrid model.

Russian news agencies RIA Novosti and Interfax have launched a joint project to provide coverage of important national news with around 600 regional media, it was announced in a  press release today.

The importance of this move was
emphasised RIA Novosti Editor-in-Chief Svetlana Mironyuk:

"This project is revolutionary as two rival agencies - the independent Interfax agency and the federal state RIA Novosti agency - are carrying out a joint media project for the first time".

According to the New York Times, American television network CBS has joined efforts with live video web site, Ustream, to have its news video content and special reports streamed live on the site, in a bid to draw in a younger crowd.

"Seeking a younger audience more accustomed to watching the news on the Internet than on television," reports the Times, Ustream will show the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, as well as a variety of real-time news reporting and other coverage, including news conferences and speeches.

According to the Press Gazette, the Scottish government is set to back an initiative aimed at boosting newspaper readership among the young.

The proposed scheme was first suggested by the Menzies Group, a newspaper distributer, who contacted Scotland's enterprise minister, Jim Mather, with the idea. While the group is still waiting on a response, it is expected that the government is likely to react favourably.

News Corps CEO Rupert Murdoch yesterday reiterated his conviction that newspapers must charge readers online, and expressed extremely strong opposition to the idea of a government bailout for newspapers. He was speaking on the News Corp-owned Fox Business Network.

"We would never take money from the government," he declared, as this would mean giving up "our freedoms and everything else to criticise or to play our full role in the community." He added that he did not think that "even the New York Times would," and expressed doubt that the government would even try to offer money. Debate about government intervention in newspapers has grown following a recent US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet which discussed whether to help newspapers become non-profit or whether to relax antitrust laws. Obama then told those at the White House correspondents' dinner that "government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America."

Will people voluntarily pay to read news that they could easily read for free? Cynthia Typaldos, founder of Kachingle is convinced that they will. Kachingle proposes a novel solution to the news industry's revenue problems: encourage people to donate money to their favourite sites, whether these are major news outlets or small-time blogs. The Editors Weblog spoke to Typaldos to find out more about the scheme, which is due to launch in late July or early August.

How it works

Kachingle users, who the company are calling Kachinglers, need to sign up once to set up their subscription, which, via PayPal, will charge them $5 a month. When they go to a news site that is participating in the venture, it will display a Kachingle 'medallion', which the user can click on to indicate their support for that site. The reader can choose to highlight as many or as few news sites as it wishes, and Kachingle will track the number of times that they visit that site in a month. At the end of a month their $5 will be divided and distributed proportionally between the sites which they have flagged, according to the amount of times visited (with a 15% cut going to Kachingle and 5% to PayPal.) "The algorithm is meant to be a proxy for value received the consumer," Typaldos explained.

Why will people pay?

The main reason Typaldos thinks people will be prepared to offer this $5 is not because they have a strong desire to help save newspapers but because of the social advantages of using Kachingle. Contributors create a profile that shows which sites they are supporting, which they can post to their Facebook profiles or send on Twitter, Typaldos suggested. There will even be a Facebook application. "It becomes a very real view of the things I value, part of my online persona," she explained: something which she believes is "very important" to people as their online existence becomes more and more complex. Essentially, "there's a very powerful peer pressure recognition element to Kachingle" which is what she thinks will drive people to become involved, she feels that users will be "getting something back" in the form of social recognition. The more altruistic wish to help support news would come second to this, she believes.

Another reason Typaldos gave for why Kachingle will work is simply how easy it is: a crucial factor for such a venture. Registering involves providing just basic details, and thereafter, a Kachingler's job is straightforward, marking the sites, without having to consider how much they would like to contribute to it. "There just can't be any mental transaction costs," as Typaldos put it. And the system still allows people to move freely around different publications without encountering pay walls, which Typaldos is firmly against. "Pay walls are just the kiss of death for newspapers," she claims, "we just think it's the wrong economic approach." Those who are trying to implement them "are trying to take the old business model and stick it on the Internet," which she believes is a doomed approach.

To start with, anyone who registers as a Kachingler will make a $5 a month payment. It is fixed thus because Typaldos did not want the decision of how much to contribute to be a barrier for users. The company plans, however, to allow people to give larger amounts in the future, and to encourage them to do so by suggesting amounts based on how many sites they have chosen to support. Typaldos hopes that the typical amount given will rise to about $20 a month. Unsurprisingly, content providers would like people to contribute more money, she said.

The start-up has been in contact with many major news publishers, Typaldos clarified, and these have been by no means only US based: publishers in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Hungary and across Scandinavia, for example, have been in touch. "We are not country specific," she confirmed. For news organisations, the benefits are clear, and the medallion button is extremely easy to install: a simple Java script widget which "you can put on your site in three minutes."

Will it work?

So how much could Kachingle actually raise for newspapers? Could it make a difference? "I think that we will bring enough revenue to sites that are very high quality with original content," Typaldos asserted. She is not under any illusions that such an effort could save a major newspaper that has "debt, so many overheads, print, a huge staff," but she is confident that Kachingle could have a highly significant impact on smaller publications such as MinnPost, which has low overheads but respected journalists. "We will be very powerful for them," she added.

The idea is a good one in the sense that it manages to combine the notion that people should and can pay for news, without putting up paywalls that would block off sections of newspapers and seem incompatible with the idea that news readers should be able to jump around as they please online. It is also compatible with an advertising model. Typaldos described it as "not like tipping, not like micropayments, but we have taken the best elements of both." The fact that readers can choose what they think its worth paying for is likely to appeal to many, and the cost is sufficiently low to not be a deterrent. It does seem that quite a substantial marketing campaign will have to be carried out to spread the word and persuade people that it is worth making the effort to sign up: social pressure alone might not be enough. Once they do so, however, they will probably appreciate the service.

Guardian Weekly has offered its readers a special subscription deal - via Twitter. Its marketing department announced that it would offer its Twitter followers the deal once it passed the 500 followers mark, which it subsequently did. Twitter users are offered four weeks for free and 50% off an initial three-month subscription.

Editor Natalie Bennett explains, "We started out on Twitter not quite sure what it was. But now there are a lot of people following us and we're picking up our kind of people." Twitter has become astonishingly popular incredibly quickly, and has been much praised as a source of stories and real-time news.

Source: Journalism.co.uk

A panel discussion held earlier this month by the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association concerning the pay versus free online subscription models has served to fuel the debate raging over this current predicament for the newspaper industry.  This time, the benefits of the online version of the Arkansas Democratic-Gazette have come under scrutiny from media consultants and journalists wary of its pay wall model.  

The Democratic-Gazette, alongside its higher-profile counterpart the Wall Street Journal, is often hailed as a future model for newspapers looking to charge for their content.  The paper operates a pay wall system, in operation since 2001, whereby viewers must pay in order to be able to read a full article.  The supporters of this system use the example of the low-key paper as a fine example of a publication profiting from its on-going transformation into a digital product.  

Google CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt has told the Financial Times that the company had considered buying a newspaper or supporting news businesses seeking non-profit status but that it is now unlikely to pursue either option. Speculation that Google might consider such a purchase has been rife for some time, and a feeling has emerged among some publishers that Google has a sense of duty towards newspapers, as its Google News product is entirely dependent on newspaper content.

Schmidt explained to the FT, however, that having looked into the possibility, the search engine was "trying to avoid crossing the line" between technology and content: "we have done well by letting content people do content in their own terms and in their own way." Google has concluded that any potential acquisition targets were too expensive or carried excessive liabilities.

After three weeks of personal experimentation with a Kindle e-reader, a Poynter writer has seen it fit to hail the gadget as a component of the "hybrid future of the news".  Bill Mitchell concluded that the Kindle would function as a third platform in his personal reading of the news, alongside printed and online forms, "I see the Kindle (and other e-readers) more as a supplement to print and online as opposed to a substitute for either."

Indeed, Mitchell's relatively positive testimony of the product, whilst not an explicit endorsement, is an interesting contribution to the current hot debate surrounding the relationship of devices such as the Kindle with the beleaguered print industry and online news sites, the latter being currently embroiled in the pay for viewing controversy.

As newspapers contemplate charging for their online content, one of the charging possibilities that has come under discussion frequently is micropayments. Debate started in early February when Walter Isaacson, writing in Time, advocated such a system as the key to saving newspapers, and a memo from Steve Brill to the New York Times suggesting that the paper adopted micropayments was highly publicised. Both keen enthusiasts and fervent critics have emerged. Now the Wall Street Journal has announced that it is going to be the first paper to actually go ahead with introducing micropayment options as well as subscription options, prompting media commentators to look once again at the concept's implications.

Jeff Jarvis believes that the new plan will "turn out to be a much better deal for me than the Journal." He is a Wall Street Journal subscriber who only rarely actually reads articles, but keeps the subscription going so that he does have access when he needs it. If individual articles were available separately, "the knowledge that I could read that occasional piece would give me the confidence to cancel my WSJ.com subscription." Will other subscribers feel the same? Are there enough regular readers who will think it worth continue their subscription. If so, the WSJ will lose on subscription money and ad revenue from those subscribers, which the micropayment system might well not make up. Without knowing the prices of articles, it is hard to make any guesses at what reactions will be.

Poynter's Romenesko blog has published a memo from MediaNews Group CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic to the group's employees which explains that the company is planning to charge for online content, to revamp its websites and to build new local information sites. The memo, originally sent on May 8, is the result of a recent executive meeting on the company's interactive strategy.

The interactive summit was meant to address "three daunting challenges" that the company is facing. The first is that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." As well as reducing print circulation, this "devalues the core of our business - the great local journalism we (and only we) produce on a daily basis." The second is that "our interactive revenue growth has slowed because it has been too closely tied to our print classified business, which has suffered with the advent of Craigslist" and others. Thirdly, "we are not significantly extending the reach of our audience, as our online products too closely resemble the newspaper, and thus fail to meaningfully read the next generation of readers."

New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee gave details on her Twitter feed of the paper's discussions at a strategy presentation to staff yesterday on how the Times might charge for online content, amongst other things. The meeting for news staff was held at the company's Manhattan based headquarters, reported the Guardian.

Her 'tweets' indicated that the NYT is considered introducing a tiered membership scheme, which was compared to an American Express credit card membership with different levels such as platinum and gold. The paper is also "rethinking the assumption that home delivery subscribers get access to everything," and thinking of membership as a "brand building product, not online product."

Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, finally made public the new Kindle DX yesterday at Pace University. Since news got out about the larger e-reader, there has been a wave of discussions on how it could be the salvation of newspapers.

The Kindle DX is marketed for the textbook, newspaper and magazine industries with a wide, 9.7-inch screen. It has enough memory space to hold 3,500 books, which does sound appealing to a student's aching back. However, whether this is really going to save the newspaper industry, remains the big question. Some say it will, others say no, "not a chance."

Facing financial difficulties, a month ago the Detroit Free Press decided to limit home delivery of its paper to only three days a week, to print small editions on other days, and to encourage people to get information online. Poynter reporter Bill Mitchell takes a look at how Detroit's initiative is progressing so far, saying that "readership of the e-edition is up -- a lot -- and cancellations of print and online combo subscriptions haven't been as massive as feared."

Since the change, only half as many subscribers have canceled as was projected, and papers are re-starting those subscriptions at a rate of 100 per day. About 6,300 people have been willing to triple their subscription price to have the paper delivered on the days home delivery is normally not offered. The paper's e-editions, which are different from the web sites, attract 30,000 people per day and 3 million page views a week, and the traffic to the web sites has increased.

A large proportion of the discussion and innovation with regards to monetise newspapers' online content has come out of the United States, possibly unsurprisingly considering the intensity of the economic downturn there, and arguably the American entrepreneurial spirit. But the US is not alone in its contemplation of the issue, which could potentially 'save' newspapers, and the Editors Weblog took a look at the situation in France and the ideas that are emerging, based on two recent studies.

Masters student Matthieu de Vivie carried out a major research project entitled "Can online news be profitable?" in which he analysed the sectors' sources of income, along with debates that have taken place on French media blogs over the past few months. The Institute of Audio-visuals and Telecommunications in Europe (IDATE), a market analysis and consulting firm, has produced several reports on online strategies for the press.

The French situation

In France, printing and distribution costs are high, partly due to state regulation and to a very powerful printing union, meaning that print profits tend to be lower. However, papers do benefit from much public aid, and this was increased in January when president Nicolas Sarkozy offered the press a 600million euro bailout. Many media outlets are owned by groups which do not actually specialise in media, but are looking for "prestige and influence within it," according to de Vivie. He gives financial daily Les Echos as an example, which is owned by Bernard Arnault, LVMH. Groups such as Dassault which owns national daily Le Figaro, or Lagardere which owns the magazine Paris Match, Journal du Dimanche and part of Le Monde, have leaders who are friends with Sarkozy. Many journalists have protested at what they see as threats to the independence of their papers.

Related to this issue of possible government influence, the French press is suffering from a lack of reader confidence, similar to that in the US. A 2008 survey showed that 46% of people did not believe a large part of what they read in newspapers. The Internet has "done away with journalists' monopoly over the production of information," states de Vivie. The increased presence of other fonts of information and aggregators has encouraged people to look far and wide for news, as in other countries.

De Vivie concluded that today, it would be impossible for a major French newspaper to survive online-only, due to the abundance of information available online and weak advertising revenue. IDATE's reports also suggest that traditional advertising is not going to support a newspaper on its own. So what are the options for newspapers as their readers migrate online?

Charging readers

The most basic option is to charge readers for online content, as newspapers have done in print for many decades. IDATE believes that the pay wall model is extremely limited. However, leading newspaper Le Monde seems to have successfully adopted a part-paid, part-free model online. It is a rare feat for a general interest paper, at least compared to the English-speaking world, where only financial giants such as the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal seem to have accomplished this. Articles are free for three days after publication, after which they go behind a pay wall. They can then be purchased individually, or basic and premium subscriptions are available, the premium option including access to digital copies of the print paper. Subscriptions represented about 35% of LeMonde.fr's revenue, while advertising accounts for 65%, according to figures obtained by de Vivie in November 2008. LeMonde.fr still has high readership, suggesting that the site's traffic has not been damaged too much by the pay wall, and that the model makes sense.

De Vivie also looks at French site Mediapart, a participatory, paid venture without advertising, launched in 2008 but Edwy Plenel, a former Le Monde editor. It is free to read other citizen participation, but a subscription gives users the right to write articles or leave comments, and to read articles from the Mediapart team. The site, however had not captured its target number of subscribers in 2008.

Alternatives to advertising?

But if papers do not succeed in persuading users to pay for their news: what are the other options? In terms of advertising, the Internet has allowed new measures to develop, as well as the CPM, pay-per-click and pay-per-action rates offer a more accurate assessment of an advertisement's effectiveness. It also allows for targeted advertising, however this is not much used in France. CPMs are also considerably lower in France than in the UK or US: according to de Vivie, a CPM of $10 is considered good in France, compared to $30 elsewhere. Part of this is due to lower investment in advertising, as well as lower Internet penetration.

IDATE's report on the future of the press considers below-the-line advertising as "essential" for a newspaper's online advertising strategy, and also recommends e-commerce as a distinct possibility: "the media now have the opportunity of developing into veritable media stores by incorporating e-commerce offers into their editorial content. IDATE suggests that newspapers form alliances with book sellers to market the books that they review, or with ticket sellers to market plays or other events. Another option is to get involved with products that target a newspapers' readership, such as the Wall Street Journal's partnership with Wine.com. The Lagardere group has signed an agreement with Sumitomo, a Japanese leader in online commerce. The firm sees advertising and e-commerce as the main revenue streams from mobile news, rather than making users or telecoms operators pay for content.

De Vivie also believes that for larger media groups, diversifying online can be profitable. He cites the example of the Washington Post's ownership of profitable education service Kaplan Inc. which he feels "is allowing the Washington Post to survive." The French Le Figaro group includes numerous commercial websites such as Evene, Sport24, Cadremploi, BazarChic ou TickeTac, which represent "an important source of revenue." LeFigaro.fr is not currently profitable but it has an important audience. One of the problems with such a strategy, however, is that it risks diluting the brand's value, which is already a fear of many papers as reading habits change online.

Potential of online-only

De Vivie is does see some potential in online-only sites, but only in certain conditions. Firstly, he believes that small "supple" organisations which offer content with significant added value, focussed on specific niches and gathering a large community, are a good approach. "This equilibrium is nonetheless precarious," he added, particularly in France where advertising brings in less revenue than in the US and it is often necessary to develop alternative sources of income.

One French success story is Rue89, which combines the skills of journalists with the knowledge of experts and the participation of citizens. Amateur contributions are checked and edited by the site's reporters. De Vivie explains that the site quickly acquired "strong journalistic credibility," offering exclusive stories and investigations. He estimates that the site could quite feasibly become profitable, especially as Rue89 does not make all of its income from advertising, but also develops websites for others, which makes up an estimated one third of its revenue. He believes that other online players also have potential to break even, due to their low fixed costs and overheads.

The impression that emerges from the studies is that online news has great potential and possibilities continue to evolve. It is therefore advisable that newspapers continue to innovate and do not resign themselves to relying on print income for as long as possible.  

New start-up company Journalism Online LLC has caused a significant stir in the media industry, and probably more behind the scenes. Founders Steven Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery have put together a proposal including promises to facilitate payment for online news, making it simple for publications to offer joint subscriptions as well as articles on a single basis using micropayment. They are also offering to negotiate on behalf of its members for licensing fees from search engines and other websites, and to provide member publishers with information on what tactics are working best in terms of building circulation and revenue.

In conversation with the start-up's consultant Merrill Brown, what stands out is that despite its distinguished founders, this company really is a new start-up, and although its members are in discussion with many big publishers and technology firms, details about how the business will actually operate are not yet clear. Brown stressed that Journalism Online is talking to publishers about "precisely what they want to see in this system, so that we get the specs right first:" it wants, sensibly, to have a good idea of the direction in which it is heading before proceeding. Details of which publishers the company has talked to have not yet been released, but Brown said "there's nobody on the list that you would be surprised at." It is clear that they are aiming high: "we all believe that getting some globally significant, influential publications or TV outlets or anybody who's in web publishing to come on board and embrace new strategy initiatives is going to be very important to our long term success."

Paid online content: all you can read

The decision to push paid online content is arguably the most ground-breaking element of the company's proposals. Journalism Online will create a system whereby consumers will be able to purchase "annual or monthly subscriptions, day passes, and single articles from multiple publishers" all through one website. Brill told PaidContent that the site will have "a fair amount of complexity, including, for example, publishers who want to make sure their print subscribers get a discount or don't pay for the online subscription."

"We argue that very few high quality products have ever been delivered for free, and neither should news" 

Pushing joint subscriptions would seem to be more effective than single paper offers, which have not had much success in the past for general interest papers such as the New York Times. Brill in fact proposed that the New York Times single handedly start charging for content in a memo to the paper written in October 2008, leaked to the press early this year, but it seems that the Times did not take this advice on board. Brown said he believes that it was a "natural evolution of Brill's thinking to try to create a larger solution involving more people." In fact, "we argue that very few high quality products have ever been delivered for free, and neither should this," Brown explained. And even if the income brought in from charging consumers is not vast, he added that "we think that over time, page circulation will bump up CPM and make advertising more valuable so that people will be a position to win on both sides of the coin." It is not just a US-based plan, Brown confirmed that they would like to have English language publishers from outside the US relatively early.

Publishers decide pricing

Pricing would be decided by the publishers, Brown explained. Steve Brill has suggested a figure of $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription, but Brown was clear that this was just something that Brill was "throwing out there." In reality, he continued, such a price would have to be decided on by the consortium of publishers. Equally, it will be up to the different publishers to decide exactly what content they want to charge for or not. They could, Brown suggested, create "web premium products," or "some may choose to have certain vertical categories such as sports behind a wall." In fact, he commented, "that's not really up to us." Others have suggested that it is far easier to charge for new content than that which is already free. And a part free, part paid model has been widely advocated, for example, maybe unsurprisingly, by Wall Street Journal Online executive editor Alan Murray.

Investigating what works and what doesn't

A crucial part of the project that has been given less attention is the company's plan to aggregate knowledge and gather data about "what works and what doesn't" with the aim of providing consulting services to struggling publishers. With this in mind, Brown said that "we are trying to encourage our partners to try lots of different things in an effort to build data." He hopes that within a year, Journalism Online will have "the collective experience of many different publishers which offer many different kinds of products." He expressed surprise at the current lack of this kind of data: "not much has been done."

Negotiating with search engines

The company will also be pursuing a copyright initiative to "negotiate wholesale licensing and royalty fees with intermediaries such as search engines and other websites that currently base much of their business models on referrals of readers to the original content on newspaper, magazine and online news websites." Brown was clear that set decisions of what this will entail have not yet been made, but explained that the goal was to "bring the industry together under appropriate pricing schemes and distribution schemes. We think there is strength in numbers in negotiations with search engines aggregators and others." Incidentally, another organisation planning to offer a similar service based on sharing ad revenue, the Fair Syndication Consortium, has just come into existence and the Associated Press recently announced plans to track its content more thoroughly and address offences more aggressively.

"We think there is strength in numbers in negotiations with search engines aggregators and others"

The project should be off the ground in the autumn, with "some partners in place," specified Brown. "The magnitude of the experiment that we will put in place is not entirely mapped out," he added, but "we will be running a piece of our programme." Seed funding is being provided by one of the founders, Leo Hindery, and his private equity firm InterMedia Advisors. A call for a first round of funding will be a natural progression, commented Brown, "this will look like a real company before too long!" He also added that once the company has more funding, it plans to do "a lot of marketing on behalf of the publisher participants."

Inspired by iTunes?

Steve Brill suggested in the interview with PaidContent that he was inspired by the iTunes model, and indeed the parallels between the initiatives are striking: both involving the intervention of an unrelated third party into an industry struggling to make consumers pay for their work. Brown explained that "we are taking broad strategic solace" from the iTunes model and learning what they can: "there are a lot of things about it that are encouraging and instructive." One of the main ways in which iTunes is instructive, he pointed out, is for "ease of use, which is something we always have to keep our eye on." And indeed with this kind of venture, making it as easy as possible for the consumer is crucial, as many people have little patience with complex payment procedures. Another encouraging point is that iTunes managed to bring together many different contributing producers of music and entertainment: just as Journalism Online hopes to do with publishers.

Steve Jobs succeeded, overwhelmingly. Will Brill and co?

The project sounds like quite an undertaking, and media coverage has been mixed over its chances of success. It will involve an unprecedented amount of collaboration between publishers to decide on rates and other aspects of such a system, which will be a considerable challenge. Previous micropayment schemes, including one started by Brill himself in 2000, have failed, but Brown believes that the time is right, due to the "predicament" in which publishers find themselves today: "I think that there's a very clear consensus that projects like this are extremely timely right now." And indeed, many different ideas about whether to and how to charge for content have been proposed in recent months, although this has been coupled with significant opposition from those who continue to favour an ad-based model and much reticence to put content behind a pay wall.

"I think the publishing industry gets how important this is. We're really inspired by the enthusiasm"

However, the response from publishers has been positive, according to Brown. "I think the publishing industry gets how important this is. We're really inspired by the enthusiasm from lots of important publishers across different sectors who have welcomed this." One major factor in Journalism Online's favour is its founders' experience and reputation. To embark on this sort of venture with any hope of succeeding requires good contacts and much influence, as well as in-depth knowledge of the industry: all of which these men have. It seems essential that a third party should step in to organise and implement this kind of scheme, hopefully uniting publishers, and this effort has as good a chance as any. It is impossible to say whether such a project could save newspapers, but without doubt, any additional income would be more than welcome, and establishing a firm precedent for paying for news could be highly beneficial in the future.