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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS