Paid online content statistics mismatch?

Posted by Nestor Bailly on September 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM

A paidContent:UK/Harris Interactive poll has found that only 5% of online news readers would pay for what they read, those that would pay prefer an annual subscription plan rather than controversial micropayments or daily payments, and that for such annual subscriptions 72% polled would not pay more than £10. Of course there are minor fluctuations in the numbers when broken down by class and age; interestingly enough the youngest group polled, those between 16 and 24, would actually be the most likely to start paying to continue reading their favorite news source. This could be because this age group is more internet-literate so many have already found a niche or specialized news source (which is why they would want more than just headlines) that they had compared to other sources, and who would have had the experience of higher quality that comes with a pay wall.

When analyzed by class the polls are none too surprising; the people with the most money are more likely to pay for their online news than the lower classes, but this figure accounts for only 6% of the middle and upper middle class. It can be reasonably conjectured that the more affluent classes are often more educated, thus might value the specific news sources they find and read, much like the 16-24 age group.

In general these polls show that online readers are not willing to shell out premium prices for news stories - bad news for publishers trying to make a profit in an already highly competitive online news market. Notwithstanding that £10 yearly is about 17 times less what a daily news reader would pay for printed news over the same period, once they do start paying, "how accepting will people be that there is still advertising on it?" asks Harris Interactive's senior tech, media and telecoms consultant Andrew Freeman.

However, it is necessary to note that these polls were only conducted in the UK where the paid content debate is less feverous than across the pond. The numbers don`t quite match up over the Atlantic: In the U.S., Nieman Journalism Lab reported from the recent invitation-only American Press Institute

conference that 'core loyalists,' those who visit a newspaper 2-3 times a day, comprise 25% of unique visitors and account for 86% of pageviews. Furthermore, the majority of 'core loyalists' are also subscribers or regular readers of the print editions of the news sources they read. These more optimistic numbers still have not convinced all executives, of whom just 51 percent think paid content will work for their publications: This is probably the case because they are aware of the mismatch between who the core readers are (the 25% of unique visitors) and the group actually willing to pay for their online news (the 5% of UK readers polled). Furthermore, as the PCUK/Harris poll builds off its questions in a dubious manner (by asking the 74% who did not want to pay how much they would pay) executives are likely to believe whatever statistics serves their agenda, as the 50-50 split on paid content feasibility and the subtly interest-oriented results of the API suggest.

What this all suggests is that news executives and publishers are hedging their bets on the core readers, regardless of the conflicting UK-US studies and their potentially questionable statistical methodology. The question would then be how to expand the paying core group without alienating the rest who can still generate ad revenue.

Sources: paidContent
Nieman Journalism Lab