[mixmax]

The newspaper industry has gotten itself into an interesting predicament.

The reason nobody wants to pay for news online is that they are used to it being free, and that it is so easy to go to a competing newssite if one starts charging. But history shows that people are willing to pay for news - millions have done so for many years via subscriptions and newsstand sales. If all online newssources cost money I'm certain millions would start paying, I know I would. But if only a few started charging I would simply switch to a competing free source. If NY times started charging money I would switch to NY Post.

It's classical game theory - if everyone agrees to charge the industry will be much better off, but if there are a few defectors they will get all the eyeballs and marketshare.

I wrote about it some time ago http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2009/03/online-news-and-prisoner...

[pyre]

If Murdoch wants to charge for the content, then they better remove barriers to consuming their content once I have paid:

  1. PDF version of the newspaper (maybe?)
  2. *FULL* article text in RSS feed body
  3. Little to no advertising.

Emphasis on the second point. Obviously I would have to authenticate to gain access, but the whole point of the 'teaser' text in RSS feeds is to drive you back to the side for ad impressions. If I'm already a paying customer, then I shouldn't need to be 'driven' back to the site if I don't want to.

[Quarrelsome]

I'm still trying to work out if people buying newspapers was ever part of their core business model. I'm pretty sure they made a loss on sales but got the money back on advertising. If that is the case then they're just bug losers since advertising revenue has dive-bombed and created an unsustainable business.