Paid-for content: is that a good idea for a mass-market paper?
It's one of the most interesting articles I have read for weeks, about the UK Daily Mail which is revamping its website with rolling news and paid-for content. The journalist Guy Clapperton is not sure if it's a relevant idea for a mass-media newspaper...
Report from The Guardian.
Excerpts from the article:
"There's no question that the broadsheets - if we can still call them that since two of them have tabloid editions now - have sorted out their websites. Whether they adopt the paid-for model as used by the Financial Times or the searchable, well-archived "everything is here" model shared by the Guardian/Observer and the others, they have a clear online identity. The red-tops, too, have taken a view on where they're coming from; both the Sun and the Mirror look like good approximations of what appears on the printed page.
The middle market is more intriguing. The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday have for some time been offering only glimpses of what appears in the paper to those reading in cyberspace. The Express, meanwhile, has a handful of stories and a scan of the cover; the rationale has always been that enabling people to read online will discourage them from spending their money on a hard-copy newspaper. There has been no sign of this policy changing and the Express declines to comment on any future plans.
But Associated Newspapers seems to have detected a shift in its readers' wants. Sometime this quarter - and they're remaining tight-lipped about exactly when -www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mailonsunday.co.uk will enjoy a complete overhaul with paid-for as well as free content drawn 60-70% from the newspapers and the remainder from elsewhere. Editorial director Avril Williams speaks of stories being updated throughout the day and supplemented with video elements as well as tools and interactivity"...
The whole article on MediaGuardian.co.uk
