Prophesying is easy.
“I confidently predict that, within 12 months, almost all news organizations will be charging for [online] content,” said Brendan Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, echoing Rupert Murdoch, who said much the same thing a few weeks ago.
Yes, Mr Barber, but can you be a touch more specific?
The FT oracle replies: “How these payment models work and how much revenue they can generate is still up in the air.”
And that’s the difficulty. The entire newspaper and magazine industry feels it is looking into a financial pit as advertising flakes away, chunks of it never to return. Somehow the zillions plowed into news Web sites have to start paying off sometime soon. There has to be light at the end of a very long, dark tunnel that threatens all seriously resourced news operations.
Yet here’s the ultimate rub.
“The question for consumers is the psychological barrier of paying now when you were getting it free before — and you’re bound to lose some readers as a result,” said Ken Doctor, a top Californian analyst.
The FT, which has always kept much of its specialized content behind paid firewalls, does not have that problem. Nor does Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. Financial journalism online has an instant value that investors and punters are well prepared to pay for.
Five years or so ago, general interest papers that had hoped to make cash from digital charges decided that free content supported by loads of paid advertising was the way forward. So the charging stopped and gathering readers — or unique users — took over. The New York Times scrapped Times Select — with its 200,000 subscribers at US$50 a year — and let buoyantly increasing Web ads take the strain. But that has turned into a disaster as ad sales on its various sites have fall between 3.5 percent and 8 percent so far this year. No miracle growth — and no opportunity to push rates charged beyond 12 percent or 15 percent of their print equivalent. Advertising alone won’t hack it. Even Google’s own market rate is down 13 percent. So what on earth will?
The New York Times, because it has US$1.1 billion in debts to pay off, is being rather more heart-on-sleeve about next steps. It has asked a research sample of subscribers whether they would pay US$5 a month for access to NYtimes.com (and if not, whether US$2.50 a month sounds a better bet).
Scott Heekin-Canedy, its group general manager, reckons micropayments — the accumulation of tiny sums for time spent online — will not work.
He said he was looking at the metered model that the FT uses or a “membership model” that charges a monthly fee and offers “club privileges” — plus bargain opportunities to buy on top.
Well, we’ll see as soon as the newly thin New York Times board sings. But don’t expect one great answer to a myriad of different dilemmas. The Times, which invests so much in content, may be able to charge successfully for some or all of it. But its unique user count is bound to decline, taking online advertising down with it. If there was a widespread, concerted change, then perhaps it could be contrived without too much loss. But current monopoly law makes such an organized commercial shift impossible.
In the UK, where the giant hulk of the BBC’s £153 million (US$252 million) a year “free” Web site is the elephant in the room, the situation is even more complex.
The London Daily Mail and the tabloid Sun newspapers, each boasting 20 million unique users or more, have moved their sites away from their print versions, concentrating on celebrity gossip and boobs rather than news. Can they charge when PerezHilton.com or TMZ.com stay free?
The London Daily Telegraph, with a huge print subscription base, has one set of possibilities. The Daily Express, with no subscriptions and not much of a Web site, has none — except price-cutting and seeing its print possibilities grow. The Guardian, leading the unique user pack, has advertising possibilities to lose if its user count slides too much in a charging switch — but jam the day after tomorrow does not help if the teacake is burning today.
Kindle, the much-touted screen reading device, may help a bit: but it’s not proven. Cellphones could offer tempting returns, but these are early days. Video is a prime development area, except that the BBC’s iPlayer and Project Canvass extensions prospectively offer it in better quality — and free. Too much of the Internet is free. So, in sum, there is only one prophecy worth a moment’s hushed silence: Something will have to be done. But heaven knows what.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS