The New York Times and some news outlets are ready to charge for their online content. The NYT has been developing this idea for over a year. It has considered three types of pay strategies but it seems that it will adopt the pay wall approach. The move has been seen by some as a radical approach as it would restrict its content to a minority of people that can afford to pay [1-2].
Newspapers have endured a huge loss in circulation and in advertising. It has been so bad that some blogs refer to it as “the death of the newspaper” and a group - The Newspaper Project - has been formed to fight against the misconception that newspapers are a dying industry [3]. If you follow this http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems, you will find some facts about newspapers gathered by the Newspaper Association of America.
But the question here is not whether newspapers are running out of time but whether people have the right for free information. Do we actually have free information?
We have been paying for information for quite a while. We pay for the news that are broadcast by CNN, Fox, Bloomberg, NBC…we also pay for the contents on MSN, Yahoo, AOL.. How? We pay for cable and internet services! So, why would we be so defensive if a paper such as the NYT wants to charge?
Furthermore, it’s a misconception to think that it would affect the poor. Are we assuming that the less fortunate have access to a computer and to the internet? One of the potential limitations on the growth of B2C e-commerce is the global inequality that limits access to phones and pc’s [4].
Finally, the price that one would pay for a newspaper is not that significant. If we see an article that we would like to follow, we just have to go to a newsstand and buy the paper ($5.00?). More important changes in cost of living were gas prices, milk, and rice, among many others.
Food for thought: Is it really quality news?
Sources:
1- http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_york_times_set_to_mimic_ws.html
2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/media/03brill.html
3 - http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems
4 - e-commerce: business, technology, society 2010, 6th Edition by Kenneth C. Laudon and Carol Guercio Traver, ©2010, ISBN-13: 9780136100577
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We do have access to free news information sources, such as network television (ABC, CBS, & NBC) and news radio. It will be argued by some that these sources are not free of charge, since one does have to pay for the TV and/or radio and the electrical bill, but this is really stretching it. Additionally, we can't forget about libraries. They house a ton of free, credible news sources. The problem with today's society is that we have been accustomed to immediate gratification. We do not want to wait for the evening news to find out about current events, nor do we want to go search through microfilm archived articles at the local library. We want fast, no-hassle, and FREE information at the click of the mouse.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the issue with the NY Times is that the general public became accustomed to unlimited free access, and now it feels cheated out of a right. The free access we enjoyed was not a right, but a privilege. The NY Times is a business & therefore has the right to charge an online subscription fee, if it feels it's the best alternative to improving its financial standing. To your point, it should not truly matter all that much considering that many of us already pay for broadcast cable news channels such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC. We choose to pay the extra money in order to have access to our preferred and trusted news sources. I think that the general public is in a state of shock. Those loyal viewers that truly value the NY Times as a trusted news source, will eventually pay the online subscription fee. It is not that easy for a loyal customer to switch to another "brand". As for the occasional viewers - we shall wait & see - the NY Times does command a large share of the market.
Renato and Vivian both make the point that while we pay for some information sources already, there are others that we've been receiving free, for awhile at least. And although I agree with Vivian's observation that the free news we've been receiving was "not a right, but a privilege," I think this is less a matter of philosophical truth, but one of consumer behavior and consumer belief. If people (readers) feel that they are entitled to the free news from the New York Times, then they'll revolt (i.e., by not subscribing when that time comes). So saving readership becomes an issue of changing that right vs. privilege belief first, even before addressing the cost vs. benefit approach of the information that will need to be purchased.
ReplyDelete