Choice: “’A la carte is such an appealing and superficial sound bite. All of the academic and Wall Street research indicates that at the end of the day, the expanded basic bundle is the most efficient’ way to sell programming.’” This quote from a Disney executive, whose company countered the FCC report with one of its own (whose conclusions were not surprisingly contrary), perfectly demonstrates old media thinking; the ‘basic bundle’ is certainly more economically efficient for the provider but for the increasingly empowered consumer, choice wins hands down.

Newspapers have historically tried to “be all things to all people,” a model that works in a world with limited choice. But circulations have been steadily dropping for decades not because their content is poor, not because their news is irrelevant, but because people have more choice.

Radio, television, and 24-hour cable news have all helped to put dents in newspaper circulations. Now, by some counts, the Internet poses the biggest threat to the lucrative business of the public buying the physical publication. Why? Because it provides the most choice; the world at your fingertips. But where some see a threat, others see an opportunity.

Between national, international, lifestyle, regional, sports, business, opinion, etc. etc., newspapers provide the most choice of any media. When thrown all together, some would argue that the reader receives the complete package they need to stay on top of things. Others, probably the large majority, would say they receive a few things they want to know and a lot of crap they could care less about, which is another reason that circulations have been dwindling; why pay for something you don’t want?

But if people only get what they want, then they will pay. Herein lies the opportunity.

Subscriptions: The traditional newspaper subscription model has proven very difficult to emulate online because of this choice. Not only do consumers have the choice to read whatever section of the paper that tickles their fancy, most times free of charge, they have the choice to read any publication in the world, not to mention shop, buy music, download movies, etc. By erecting a paid-wall or traditional subscription, this freedom of choice is immediately hindered and people are likely to find what they’re looking for elsewhere.

The best example of this is the New York Times online subscription service, TimesSelect. Instead of paying for the service, readers have often been able to find a copy of the paid-for article they are looking for. But there is another large problem with TimesSelect that contradicts the spirit of choice.

TimesSelect still tries to be all things to all people. The package, which costs $50 a year, includes the paper’s well-known editorial writers along with business, sports, International Herald Tribune and New York region columnists. These subjects have nothing in common. So why would someone who just wants to read the sports columnists pay $50 a year for the other sections which he doesn’t care about, especially when he can find sports commentary just about anywhere on the web for free?

The New York Times was certainly right to test out a paid plan for the Internet. And the numbers they’ve shown, about 440,000 subscribers, 156,000 web-only subscribers at last count, aren’t bad. But they seem to be leveling off pretty quickly, suggesting that the plan may ultimately not prove successful.  

Of course, if TimesSelect doesn’t work out, it doesn’t have to mean the end of paid content online. There are options that still allow sufficient choice for the consumer and income streams for newspapers.

The “subscription” of choice: The online option that leaves the reader with the most choice and can still bring significant revenue to newspapers, as I’ve mentioned before, is micropayments. Let’s look at the cable model and a personal experience to see why this would work.

If cable packages were unbundled for reader choice, one consultant complained that “the price of ESPN (a sports network) would have to go to $20 (a month) for it to stay on the air." This exaggerated quote only goes to show how many people who receive the standard cable package watch ESPN – not even close to the majority (just like newspaper readers don’t read everything in the paper).

It was countered with the reality: “In Canada, you can buy a la carte as many channels as most Americans watch for about 20% less. In France, you can get ESPN for 40 cents a month, so it's hard for me to believe it would be $20 here."

I live in France and my cable package (which also includes telephone and high-speed Internet for 30 Euro per month) gives me the option of paying for extra channels by the month (ESPN actually costs 45 cents). The selection is diverse, just like the news in a newspaper. If I subscribe to one of those channels or download a movie through the service, the price is tagged onto the monthly bill.  

The thing is, when I download an option, I don’t really think about it because individually the channels and movies are so cheap. Sure, at the end of the month, sometimes I’m hit with a shock but when I think about all those hours of entertainment, I can’t complain.

Then I thought about all the online news I read for free. Because of the freedom of choice I have online, I realized immediately that I would never pay for subscriptions as my wallet is not bottomless and I thrive on Internet news choice.

But if a system was set up that I would pay per article without really thinking about it only to have my combined news reading added to my monthly Internet bill which would then be directed to the pockets of the publications I had read, I figured that wouldn’t pose much of a problem.

It’s only fair to give a little back to the people who provide you with quality information as long as they leave you freedom of choice. Don’t you think?

Source: USA Today 

Update: Latest TimesSelect numbers from PaidContent