Want to read all about it online? It may cost you

September 20, 2009 By MICHAEL LIEDTKE , AP Business Writer
Chart quarterly print and online ad volume from 2005 to the present

(AP) -- With their advertising revenue drying up, newspaper publishers spent much of the spring and summer debating whether to cut off free online access to some of the material they run in their shrinking print editions.

It looks like the talk will turn to action this fall, when some large newspapers are expected to put up Internet toll booths.

They'll be testing readers' willingness to pay for information and entertainment that mostly has been given away online for the past 15 years. That happened largely because most publishers could afford to subsidize their Web sites with profits from their print franchises. But now those profits have crumbled, just as the prices for online ads are tumbling, too.

A recent study by the American Press Institute found 58 percent of the responding newspapers are considering online fees. Of that group, 22 percent expect to introduce the fee before the end of the year. The findings drew upon 118 interviews of newspaper executives in the U.S. and Canada.

The free-to-fee transition likely will occur in tentative steps rather than bold leaps that would lock all online content behind a pay gate. Publishers are taking this cautious approach because they are still trying to devise online payment plans that will generate more revenue without alienating too many of their readers.

For instance, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a newspaper with a weekday of about 206,500, recently launched a Web site that includes coverage and commentary on sports, politics and entertainment that isn't in its printed product or free online edition. The service costs $36 annually or $3.99 per month.

Other newspapers that have talked up subscription plans remain reticent. Newsday of Long Island, N.Y., still hasn't rolled out fees for its Web site, even though the newspaper's owner, Corp., said it was going to do so this summer. Newsday spokesman Paul Fleishman declined to comment.

The conundrum facing publishers: It's hard to figure out how much, if anything, readers will be willing to pay. Internet search engines and digital communication tools such as Twitter and Facebook ensure people still will be able to find and share plenty of free content.

But running totally free sites hasn't been paying off for most newspapers. Even before the online market began to slump this year, Web ads were generating only a small fraction of the revenue that print ads do. The disparity has made publishers realize they need more ways to make money on the Internet, but few of them have been able to figure out how.

"This is like a four-dimensional chess game. It's really complex," said former newspaper editor Alan Mutter, who is now an industry consultant when he isn't writing "Reflections of a Newsosaur," a free blog.

The Associated Press also has been part of the online fee movement. The not-for-profit cooperative, which is owned by newspapers, is setting up a system that will track the usage of its stories. It's a crucial piece of a plan that could improve the AP's ability to run ads next to news stories and perhaps even lead the AP to charge readers to see major scoops or other "premium" content.

"The value of content has to rise," said Tom Curley, the AP's chief executive. "We are all looking how to make that happen."

Even as newspapers mull just how much to commit to charging readers, a competition is already brewing to provide the technology to enable it.

Four of the world's largest technology companies - Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., IBM Corp. and Oracle Corp. - have expressed an interest in developing an online payment system for publishers. Mutter also has been promoting his own approach to Internet fees, a concept he calls ViewPass.

Separately, more than 1,000 newspapers and magazines have signed nonbinding letters of intent to join an Internet fee system being assembled by Journalism Online LLC. It intends to begin collecting money on behalf of publishers before winter.

Backed by former leaders from Court TV and The Wall Street Journal, Journalism Online wants to run the cash register for a digital news smorgasbord. Readers will be able to buy stories from a wide range of participating publishers without having to repeatedly provide their credit card numbers and other personal information at each Web site. The content would be distributed on the Web and electronic reading devices, with each publisher dictating its own terms. As a commission, Journalism Online plans to keep 20 percent of the revenue collected through its system.

Although he isn't jumping on board with Journalism Online, News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch is sold on online fees.

News Corp. already owns the newspaper industry's most successful Internet subscription model in The Wall Street Journal, with more than 1 million customers who pay for online access. The annual rates vary from $103 for an online-only subscription to $140 for a package that includes delivery of the print edition too. Now, Murdoch hopes to make online fees pay off for his other publications, which include the New York Post and The Times of London. Murdoch hasn't provided a timeline or specifics about his plans, however.

The New York Times is considering charging online readers a membership fee, with more details promised in the fall. It's a road the newspaper has been down before, only to reverse course after management concluded that the online subscription it required to read the Times' top columnists was crimping its Internet ad sales. The subscription service, which cost $50 per year, was scrapped in 2007 after a two-year run. It had 221,000 customers when the Times tore down the toll booth.

These days, the printed versions of newspapers are suffering so much that publishers appear determined to find a way to get readers on the Internet and mobile devices to pay something, even if it's just a few bucks per month. The question is mainly which publisher will jump off the sidelines first.

"There's still a lot of `wait-and-see' attitudes out there," said Randy Bennett, senior vice president of business development for the Newspaper Association of America. "I think a lot of publishers would like to see some empirical evidence of what happens to other publishers who dip their toes into the water."

In a worst-case scenario, imposing online fees would drive away so much of a newspaper's Web audience that publishers would lose more in Internet ad sales than they would gain in new revenue.

In a best-case scenario, newspapers charging their online readers would still retain enough of the audience for their Web sites to remain attractive marketing channels. What may be even more important, the fees might make readers more willing to pay for the print editions if the same content isn't on the Web for free, especially if print subscriptions include free or discounted Web access.

Preserving the value of their print franchises is one of the main reasons for publishers to charge for Web access. That's because newspapers still get most of their money from print ads, which accounted for $35 billion of the industry's revenue last year. Newspaper print ads are on pace to fall below $30 billion this year.

Online ads, in contrast, contributed just $3.1 billion in revenue last year. And while that category had been growing until this year, it wasn't fast enough to offset the erosion in print ads. From 2005 through 2008, the industry's annual revenue from print ads dropped by $12.7 billion. Meanwhile, newspapers' annual revenue from online ads increased by just $1 billion.

Journalism Online's co-founder, Steven Brill, believes newspapers can still hold on to most of their online readership by charging for only their best work - information, images and audio unlikely to be found anywhere else on the Web. This presumes publishers will be able to prevent the content from being copied and pasted or even just summarized at other sites, a potentially daunting task.

Some publishers still have no intention to charge for online access because they have concluded online fees are bound to backfire on the newspaper Web sites that adopt them, Mutter said. The American Press Institute study found 44 percent of the respondents don't think Internet fees will provide a significant lift to newspapers' future revenue.

"The guys who hold off (on Internet fees)," Mutter said, "could get a have a huge windfall in new traffic."

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Coming to mobile phones: Wall Street Journal fees

Related Stories

Coming to mobile phones: Wall Street Journal fees

September 15, 2009

(AP) -- The Wall Street Journal plans to start charging as much as $2 a week to read its stories on BlackBerrys, iPhones and other mobile devices, expanding the newspaper's effort to become less dependent on its print edition.

Online news fees: financial salvation or suicide?

May 25, 2009

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is a rarity among large U.S. newspapers - it's selling more weekday copies than a decade ago. In Idaho, the Post Register's circulation has remained stable, while many other print publications ...

Future of newspapers is digital: Murdoch

May 28, 2009

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said on Thursday that the future of newspapers is digital, but it may be 10 to 15 years before readers go fully electronic.

Recommended for you

A not-quite-random walk demystifies the algorithm

December 15, 2017

The algorithm is having a cultural moment. Originally a math and computer science term, algorithms are now used to account for everything from military drone strikes and financial market forecasts to Google search results.

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

FCC votes along party lines to end 'net neutrality' (Update)

December 14, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit ...

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2009
Well, at worst, they'll try this, suffer severe financial losses, and be forced into bankruptcy. End result: We lose the gutter press.

not rated yet Sep 20, 2009
With a purchased "code", changing periodically, they could publish whole newspapers on line to customers. The cost of "printer ink" is too high to make copies!
3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2009
Unless they plan on disabling print screen, I cannot see any way of limiting that to one customer. If they do put it in a flash format as I suspect they would have to, to minimize that, isn't that persecuting against those with visual impairment, and other disabilities?

The nature of the web is, once its out there, it is copied and echoes continually. I just cannot see this approach working, not for any news worth knowing.
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2009
"It's a well known fact that dead geese cannot lay golden eggs! And yet when businesses feel the slightest pinch in their profits, the first thing they usually cut is their marketing ... in effect, killing the goose!" By Markus Allen

Quality content is the highest standard. Especially when up-front cost is involved. I agree with vika_Tae, when the ground rules change it is the below average candidate who ultimately fails.
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2009
There is NO way I am going to pay any newspaper for content. Never have. Never will. I suspect that our Parasite-in-Chief and his little red Democrat Congressmen and Senators are going to either restructure the papers into non-profits so that they don't pay taxes OR, and I consider this more likely, institute an internet subscription fee that will be used as a slush fund to keep his loyal sycophants in the legacy press in paychecks.
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2009
The New York Times has achieved nirvana here. They have both free and paid-for content. The best thing is the Times Reader software that is built on Adobe Air. I see a viable approach here. Newspapers can follow the same path and survive. The New York Times has enough free content for casual readers and reserves the full range of articles to unlock paid content.

On the other hand, people that will be put off by subscriptions are most likely the ones who are not the newspapers' target audience in the first place. I read PhysOrg.com and still pay for scientific publications (mainly in print and only sometimes in digital format). The only reason that I still buy paper-based editions is that laptops and desktops are not nice to hold on the bus and while lying down. The light weight of paper means that I can hold a magazine in one hand, half folded, and not worry about battery life.

In short, a well thought of digital experience is guaranteed to attract paying customers.
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2009
Four of the world's largest technology companies - Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., IBM Corp. and Oracle Corp. - have expressed an interest in developing an online payment system for publishers.

What's wrong with subscriptions? Why are they trying to invent a new system?

Readers will be able to buy stories from a wide range of participating publishers without having to repeatedly provide their credit card numbers and other personal information at each Web site.

Again, there's already a system that does this - PayPal. Sure it might not do everything they want, but all that's needed is a little update to allow PayPal to send the personal information (name, address, etc.) along with credit card info under certain circumstances.

There's no reason to spend time and effort coming up with new systems when these things already exist, or will only take small modifications to work how they want them to.
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2009
Also, its completely impossible to prevent information from spreading on the web. Take as many measures as you want - disable print screen, take down YouTube videos, etc - but unless you put a MIB memory-erasing flashy thing at the end of your stories, people will tell other people what they read about. And that will end up right back on the web through IM conversations, blogs, whatever. Good luck.
Sep 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sep 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
not rated yet Sep 21, 2009
Sadly I can just see several media moguls trying to put a memory eraser at the 'logout' section of a newspaper soon as the technology becomes feasible, just to make people pay to read it all over again - many a truth is said in jest.
not rated yet Sep 26, 2009
It's ridiculous. Simple screen grabs defeat erase options. OCR gets the text out of the image. All we are going to have is the newspapers attempting to become the next RIAA/MPAA. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
not rated yet Sep 26, 2009
Physorg seems to do a fine job providing free information to users- perhaps because it has something interesting to say ;)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.