The ugliest phrase in journalism at the moment is ‘pay wall’. Isn’t it just the worst possible way of describing what we want to achieve? Wall says restricted. Wall says “this isn’t for you”.
And wall sums up an entire attitude too. An attitude that we desperately need to shake off. An attitude that says the choice we have is either a) a free online newspaper or b) a paid for subscription for an online newspaper.
I say bring this to the table: c) A newspaper with added valuable extras which cost the reader.
What are valuable extras? Your star columnists. Your war correspondents. Your exciting multimedia. They can — and should — be behind the pay lid
What aren’t valuable extras? Hard news, breaking stories. In other words, the stories that every news website in the world can — and will — publish.
In today’s Evening Standard, Emma Duncan says the pay wall will never work because of one crucial enemy: the BBC. There’s no escaping it — the BBC’s resources, know-how and power could never be rivalled by any newspaper. That’s been the case for years. But she’s missing the point.
Later on in the same paper, their new sex columnist, Nirpal Dhaliwal suggests lovers should “Get yourself on to the roof of any major skyscraper for a similar adventure — Bush House for instance.” What better place to embrace your lust than on the top of the BBC World Service’s headquarters?
So taking Nirpal’s lead, I say let’s make love, not walls.
Newspapers may not be able to compete with the BBC. But on the same token, can the BBC ever compete with newspapers? A new colleague of mine at the World Service argued that newspaper journalism is REAL journalism. It’s the digging in. BBC News crews are so wrapped up in covering every major story of the day that they have literally no time to think about what it all means.
Take the recent Daily Telegraph scoop. Could the BBC have followed that one to its dramatic climax? No way. Couldn’t happen. But the Telegraph could. And boy, it did.
So far from looking at the BBC as an immovable object, I say the BBC is allowing newspapers to get on with it. The BBC News website is the Mr Muscle of online publishing. It really does love the jobs you hate.
Now if my time at the BBC has taught me anything, it’s that ideas are worthless — it’s working examples that really get you somewhere. So, taking the Telegraph scoop into consideration, here’s how you could handle the story online while making back some of the reported £150,000 you spent finding it all out:
Here’s the homepage for the expenses story (enlarge by clicking). What are your valuables here? The great scoop about Lib Dems? Strangely not. This is the story that will — and indeed, already is — be thrust around news sources in seconds. In fact, I’d argue that none of the stories in the main area are valuable extras at all. In old money, they would have been — they would have been the money-grabbing front page. But not today. Big stories are shared stories — the important bit is using the kudos to your advantage.
The valuables, then, lie elsewhere. Look at the sidebar, what do you see? Comment. Simon Heffer on the spirit of Cromwell. Denis MacShane on how the BNP shouldn’t be allowed to capitalise on the scandal. These are your valuable extras. Knowing that it was the Telegraph that did the digging — isn’t its own analysis considered to be the golden nugget of its output?
And there’s more. You could charge for things like this. People appreciate the effort. Indeed, I didn’t buy the Telegraph this week, but had I have done I would have immediately looked up my local MP. This article appeals to me, and a micropayment arrangement would have worked.
And to top it off, the Telegraph could hurl in income by saying offering a one-time payment (two quid?) which gives you access rights to all expenses-related material on the site.
It’s all actually rather easy.
Right then, I’ll get straight to it: The UK needs its own Huffington Post, and Piers Morgan is the only man for the job.
Today, Wilmington Media announced that 
So there we have it, then. The business model will be paid accounts. And maybe advertising too — who says there has to be just one way of making money? Right now it seems likely that those little text ads that have appeared in the top right corner of your Twitter homepage will soon be sold. Right now they’re up there for free — which I assume is part of an experiment into how many clickthroughs they can promote to potential partners.
Why micropayments won’t corrupt journalism
May 13th, 2009Small change guv'nor?
I’m quite bemused at the reaction to the micropayments idea from many big names.
Clay Shirky says:
He doesn’t mince his words there. What I find infuriating about Shirky is the constant assertion is that information should be free simply because it’s part of a conversation. Well here’s a game: try going into your local WHSmiths and demanding a free copy of Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody. Good luck.
Jeff Jarvis hops in:
The Paris Hilton effect, hmm? I see his point. What I have noticed, though, is that Jarvis seems to have pulled his head out of his free-for-everyone backside and started to acknowledge that some form of payment has to be forthcoming. This is only a good thing — people listen to Jarvis.
Shirky, on the other hand, spends all his time telling us how things won’t work. We need a new model for hiring reporters, he’ll insist, but it’ not micropayments, or subscription. What model is it, Clay? Is it the model of writing a book and then touring the conference circuit like some sort of pastor? I sure hope not — that would be stupid.
Now, back to the topic. The issue Jarvis refers to in the quote above is a valid one. Would micropayments hasten the demise of ’serious’ journalism? Would editors shy from less sexy stories in favour of quick bucks?
There’s no denying it’s something we need to look at. From Greg Horowitz:
But what I say to Greg Horowitz is that when he goes out to buy a newspaper, the front pages he’ll see already display the sort of corruption he worries about. In the UK, any front cover with Princess Diana is proof Horowitz’s fears are real — and there’s nothing we can do about it.
But here’s the crucial thing: There’ll always be Top 10 Sexual Positions articles. I love reading them — it’s fun. But pay for them? Nah. No way. Pay for expert analysis on MPs expenses, however, and I’ll get my wallet out.
Now you could believe that there is a worrying amount of people who are content to just read about trashy celebs. I read about trashy celebs daily — you can’t avoid it if you work in London. The Lite and thelondonpaper are thrust into your hands. It’s full of the stuff.
But online it’s different. More people choose to read ’serious’ newspapers online. The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph all fair better online than their tabloid cousins (with the exception, very recently, of The Sun). What this tells us is that when given a choice, people will look to the intellectual, the important, the interesting. Micropayments won’t dissuade that.
In my last post I looked at the concept of ‘valuable extras’. These can apply in celebrity stories too — you just have to be clever about it. If we take the news of Peter Andre and Katie Price’s split, a micropayment-savvy web editor wouldn’t have placed the story behind a micropayment wall. Instead, he’d make it freely available, gathering all the Google/Twitter/Digg hits imaginable, while instructing his journalists to put together his valuable extras: An interactive timeline with famous clips of their relationship. Audio with family and friends. Reaction from celeb friends. All valuable, unique additions that people — originally drawn to the page by traditional Google juice — can then splash a few pennies and enjoy.
It’s too simple not to work.
14 comments »
Posted in Comment, Newspapers, The Future, The Web
Tags: clay shirky greg horowitz jeff jarvis micropayments pay walls