Archive for the ‘The Web’ category

« Older Entries

Five things I’ve learnt about… pay walls

February 8th, 2010

Pay walls, micropayments, premium subscriptions… whatever you want to call them, they all have one thing in common: we have no clue what works. Yet.

But we all have our own opinions on what won’t work. The anti-paywall brigade – I’m in it, I think, perhaps, possibly, slightly – will say stacking up all your content behind a big barrier is no way to gain an audience.

And others will add that ‘news’ – whatever that is – can’t be sold. It’s just information. Technically, we’ve never sold news. We’ve sold a newspapers; printed, delivered and physical. But never the actual news itself.

As Jim Tucker once told me, it was a very disheartening experience indeed to learn that his readers – he used to be the editor of a national Sunday paper in New Zealand – got more angry about a crossword being moved than they did about anything else.

Maybe people haven’t ever wanted to buy news? Depressing.

But fear not. Read around a bit on pay walls and you discover some decent initiatives. Yet, to great frustration, we’re sometimes our own worst enemies. Here’s five things I’ve learnt about pay walls – for good or for bad.

(by gyn_ti46 on Flickr)

1. Newspapers are very, very selfish

A few days ago, the Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent Afua Hirsch tweeted that Alan Rusbridger said (possibly paraphrased): “if New York Times goes behind a paywall, Guardian will be most widely read enl-lang newspaper in the world.”

Well congratulations. I don’t think anyone can match the Guardian online right now – it really is a brilliant website which manages to mix normal, hard news with niche industries. Perfect. But Mr Rusbridger is seriously mistaken if he thinks being the most widely read english language newspaper in the world will solve any of his problems.

If you can’t make 30 million visitors work, then I’d argue no amount will turn things round. If anything – it’ll get worse.

And I can’t help thinking it’s a rather selfish response from the Guardian. They’d be much wiser, surely, to just keep schtum and see if Murdoch’s plans work. If they do, it’ll be better for everyone – especially the Guardian who, with a successful pay wall, could really benefit from all those Media Guardian addicts among us.

But, alas, we’ve got to put up with pretty pathetic bitching between each side… which brings me onto my next point:

2. It’s about to get messy

Perhaps it already has. Bullshit, says Murdoch of Rusbridger’s notion that newspapers will “sleep walk into oblivion” if they adopt pay walls.

I’m no Murdoch fan – nothing personal, but his control on the world is scary, no? – but I’m starting to think we should give him a good chance with this. Maybe we’ll look back in ten years and say ‘hey… he really saved the industry’. It’s possible.

But before then it’ll be mud-slinging all round. I can almost sense the excited fingers of comment writers just itching to get stuck in News Corp when the first major pay walls go up. Presuming it’s The Times, what’s the betting that we’ll see a whole heap of bile about the quality of the ‘paid’ Times compared to the free Telegraph? Very likely.

But again, as in point two, we’d be far better off diverting our energy into working as a collective to embrace new ways of paying for news online – rather than picking into each other for some short term traffic gains.

Imagine that. “Our newspaper is out of business because we couldn’t adapt to a new business model. Damn. But hey, on the plus side, in the month we slagged off the other paper we got 800,000 extra uniques!”

Mugs!

3. BBC News Online doesn’t change anything

“Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it.”

The words of James Murdoch, son of Rupert, and chairman of News Corp.

It’s an interesting point, and at first glance it appears he may have a point. Right now, the BBC is probably the biggest news-gathering organisations in the world. To be a correspondent is to be at the top of your game. And the website with all this stuff? It’s free.

Obviously not 100% free – there’s a licence fee and all that. But in the minds of users, it feels like a free service. No barriers, no pay walls – you just log on.

So how can anyone compete?

Easily, I say. You see, BBC News Online is all about the here and now. What’s happening today. Yes – that’s the point of a newspaper too – but in a different way, I’d argue.

Newspapers can pile on the analysis. They can doggedly chase stories in a way that is different to the BBC.

Take the expenses scandal as a good example – would the BBC have been able to report that story the same way the Telegraph did? Of course not – it would fall down at the point of paying all that cash for the information.

So my view – a biased one, admittedly – is that if newspapers think the BBC News website completely kills of the level playing field they need to just be more imaginative.

4. It’s a brilliant thing for quality journalism

‘Tits for hits’ is a phrase we jokingly use in our office. It’s true – any story with a promise of some flesh is a surefire way to get hits.

It doesn’t bode well for the future of quality journalism, does it? If all we click on is boobs, then it would be easy for news editors to just save money and make all their stories about Angelina Jolie. Seems like the Daily Mail does that anyway – take a look at their right hand nav.

With pay walls that all changes. I wouldn’t pay to read about Jordan getting married (again), but I would pay for the brilliant One in 8 Million series from the New York Times. I’d pay an awful lot, actually.

This means that, for the first time in our industry’s history, what the journalists want will be in tune with what the bean counters want.

If good journalism sells – which it will – then we’ll be needed to do more of it. Happy days.

5. The makers of Press+ are going to be very, very rich

I prattled on a few months back about how micro-payments could work if there’s a single payment method for every newspaper/news site in the world.

A Paypal for papers, if you will.

I think this is the most crucial aspect of the whole pay wall debate. If there can be one central system that powers it all, for everyone, then we’ve got a system that will succeed.

Put it this way – when you by The Times, do you have to go to a special newsagent which just sells that paper? Do you then have to cross the road to get the Telegraph? No.

Well someone’s only gone and done it. Press+ is touting itself as an out-of-the-box solution for pay walls. From PaidContent:

“Any consumer with a Press+ account should only have to enter payment info once to use the account for any publisher taking part.”

Spot on. So let’s just get on with it, eh?

2 comments »

Posted in Five Things, Multimedia, Newspapers, The BBC, The Future, The Web

The greatness of social media (with the help of 8 Minute Abs)

June 1st, 2009

If you read media blogs in order to learn something new, or find the next big thing, then I’d advise you skip this post. It won’t be worth it.

What I’m about to tell you is neither new or surprising. We all know about it. But, just as my Dad is often compelled to marvel at the mobile telephone, I often find myself thinking “Wow. Social media really very clever”.

The last time it happened was at Euston Station. Or to be a little more accurate, a couple of days after a trip to Euston Station. Read that little anecdote here.

Moving on. Readers, I’m getting a little fat. Since passing my driving test, and getting a job, I’ve spent more time sat on my arse than ever. As a result, I’ve got a bit porky. Now I know what you’re thinking — “Blogger in overweight shocker” — but I don’t like to be a bloater.

So I’ve taken a few measures to sort this out. First: lots of walking. Second: LESS CHIPS. Third: 8 Minute Abs.

8 Minute Abs, you ask? Ah! It’s my secret weapon:

Cheesier than a Westlife ballad. But I tell you what — it’s a bloody good workout. So there’s social media triumph number 1: the fact I found it in the first place after searching for ‘fitness’.

Triumph number 2: thanks to the ‘Related videos’ I now know that as well as 8 Minute Abs, there is 8 Minute Arms, 8 Minute Legs and a few others. Great! I’m sticking to the abs right now, but boy, can’t wait to see what the cool fella has in store for me next.

And he is a cool fella indeed. How do I know? Well, another user has posted this little chat with him on YouTube too.

But here’s where the fun begins. A search on YT for 8 Minute Abs brings up a fans. A couple of remixes — this is my favourite — and then this gem:

Haha! Now, those folk on the floor aren’t just a bunch of fatties. How dare you! They’re actually in a band called Combichrist. Of course, at this point I could take the route into social media and find out all about Combichrist. But let’s stick with abs for a time being.

Here’s Rachel, doing the routine, filmed by, I assume, her college roommate. Not the best video you’ll ever see, but check out those comments! Look who it is! It’s THE BLOKE IN THE CLIP. AHHHHHHHH!! I haven’t been this excited since I bumped into Bill Bailey in a lift the other week.

And here’s a — ohhhh! — clip of a bloke who — ohhhh! –  is completely — ohhhh! — off his — ohhhhh! — face (confused? Just watch the clip). In an unexpected twist, turns out he’s a born again Christian.

Then on to Facebook. There are, as expected, tons of groups celebrating the brilliance of the clip. And with Twitter I find another load of people sharing their enjoyment too.

The quesiton is whether all this extra knowledge is pointless. Well I’d argue it isn’t. Through social media I’ve not only found the clip, but I’ve found tips and information about it and I’ve found a community (yes, it’s a community) of people who appreciate it like I do.

I quite like that. If the man in the video, Jaime Brenkus, was talking to social media, I’m sure he’d say: “Woo, you’re doing a great job!”

1 comment »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The Web

Tags:

The passion press: a business model?

May 26th, 2009

I’ve been all about micropayments lately — but here’s another idea to chew over.

I’m going to call it the “got any spare change guv’nor?” approach. It works, consistently, for Wikipedia — but for how long we don’t know. (Side note: Is ‘Ars Technica’ actually pronounced, y’know, ‘arse’? Works for me.)

The other night I got an email from Simon Owens, a former newspaper hack and now social media-y kinda guy. He shared his post about ‘Paste’ magazine, an independent music magzine in the States:

“We needed some cash,” Purdy told me. “So we had always known that if we ever had to, we could go to our readers. A lot of them tell us — especially in the last few months, because they’re not dumb, they know what’s going on in the economy — they’ve written us and said, ‘hey, if things ever get rough on Paste, make sure you ask us for help,’ and so we took them seriously. We have a special relationship with out readers.

Woah — how many magazines could say that with a straight face?

But it got me thinking — is the passion press the ultimate business model? I donated money — a tiny amount, but an amount nonetheless — to Wikipedia when I was studying. Why? Because I couldn’t live without it. Are there magazines you couldn’t live without? Possibly not — but there’s probably a website out there that you love.

Personally, if they asked, I’d donate money to When Saturday Comes, the brilliant football magazine which, I’m delighted to say, I now write for. Before the days of WordPress.com, I’d have winged a few quid to WordPress if they’d really needed it. After all — I owe much of my career to this simple yet powerful software.

Twitter? Perhaps. Facebook, no, not now. There’s a point, I guess, when a site lifts itself away from the community and into the hands of corporations — and Facebook’s time has long gone.

But how’s that for a business model? Sites struggle on with advertising revenue — but if they need it, readers trump up and sort them out. Are there any magazines you’d donate money to in order to keep them alive?

4 comments »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The Future, The Web

Tags:

20 practical and innovative ways to introduce micropayments for newspapers

May 15th, 2009

A couple of posts ago, while pondering micropayments, I wrote “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”. Since then, a friend emailed me, saying that she thinks the problem with micropayments is that people don’t know see how they fit in. They don’t see how people — the punters — will react to suddenly being told to pay for something that used to be free.

I believe it can be done.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

It’s not a case of just throwing up subscription walls, slapping readers in the face with a log-in screen that says “Join now and get 40% off at Debenhams”. We need to be inventive. Considering how creative journalism is, the lack of creative thinking with payments (and the web in general) is baffling. What are we afraid of? Innovation? Profit?

So I’d like to get the ball rolling. Here are 20 suggestions for adding micropayments to a newspaper website. The ideas cover promotion, implementation and, for want of a better phrase, damange limitation. I’m going to divide them up into categories depending on the ‘type’ of person.

Mr Jones the Newspaper Buyer, 53

1. Mr Jones appreciates online treats after buying his newspaper

Mr Jones goes out and buys The Times. He spends 90p. Mr Jones reads The Times on his way to work, and stuffs it in his bag when he’s done. At work, he checks the newspaper online; but hang on — he can’t access the articles. Under the new micropayment scheme he’s forced to pay again. Right? Wrong. In Mr Jones’ paper, he has a voucher. On that voucher is a unique code that can be used once — and only once — to access the day’s content online. He can do this for just 30p — that’s a third of the normal price. For £1.20, Mr Jones has got the print product and all the additional online extras too. Mr Jones is happy.

2. Mr Jones wants to subscribe (Thank you Mr Jones!)

Subscriptions are on the decline, yes, but there are still core subscription readers who will be around for some while yet. Mr Jones is one of them. If he wanted to subscribe to The Times he would have to pay £5.50 per week. Mr Jones should be offered the newspaper plus all the brilliant web content for £6.50 a week. Five days of web goodness for just £1. “That’s lovely,” says Mr Jones.

3. If there’s one thing Mr Jones enjoys more than cricket, it’s reading about cricket

It’s test match season — and if there’s one thing Mr Jones loves, it’s settling down to watch the days play at Lords. In a perfect world, he’d be able to spend his days watching the willow. But sadly he has to resort to following the action online. No problem, though, because for £1, Mr Jones gets full coverage from the test: A column from Michael Atherton, a podcast with Geoffrey Boycott, an interactive scoreboard. Typical things like match reports and liveblogs will still be free — the casual cricket fan won’t pay. But for people like Mr Jones, all this great coverage is really enjoyable.

4. Mr Jones is interested in politics

Between work, cricket and spending time with his lovely wife, Mr Jones doesn’t have much time for anything else. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to know what’s going on in the world of politics. For 50p a week, The Times will send him a politics digest t0 his inbox once a day from their team at Westminster. If he likes it, he can subscribe for £1.50 a month — saving 50p as he goes.

5. Mr Jones is delighted with his theatre vouchers, and he knows which show to see

So many shows, so little time. Or maybe, so little money. The good news for Mr Jones is that to go alongside the micropayment relaunch, The Times has also launched its special interactive theatre guide. Mr Jones knows what’s on, at what time, and how good it is. The guide costs 50p per week — but at the end of each month he’ll get some vouchers to print off and enjoy. Money well spent Mr Jones!

Pete the student, 20

6. Pete gets £5 of free credit every month

Pete may be eating moudly bread and sleeping in grubby sheets, but he still likes to keep up to date. Handy, then, that he gets £5 free credit to spend on newspapers online each month. He can spend it as he chooses. On any newspaper. Just one of the perks of being a National Union of Students member.

7. Pete thinks Flight of the Conchords are awesome

Which means he is pleased to discover the feature about the new series on the website. He reads it. It’s free. But for an exclusive audio clip of Bret and Jemaine talking about the show, he can pay 20p. If Bret and Jemaine are feeling exceedingly generous, their live track will cost Pete 50p — but he can download it to keep.

8. Pete really loves music

Pete is getting fed up of having to buy clips from his favourite bands individually each time. Those 50p installments soon add up for him. For £5 a month, Pete can download clips, listen to podcasts, see exclusive video interviews on all all online newspaper sites. Not just one. The income is distributed to newspapers depending on which content he chooses.

9. Pete supports Chelsea

Don’t blame Pete, it’s not his fault. But we shouldn’t begrudge him the enjoyment of knowing about his club. Mr Jones subscribed to the test match, but Pete just wants to know about Chelsea. That’ll cost him 80p a week. For that money he’ll get daily news digests, exclusive interviews, features, fan community involvement: all sorts.

Now while Pete is a bit of a grubby glory hunter, he still follows his local team: Shrewsbury Town. He can follow them as well and, because he already subscribes to Chelsea, the second team only costs him 20p per week.

10. Pete wants to share his favourite articles with his friends

Chelsea thump Aston Villa 4-0? Well we have some celebrating to do! Pete can send the interview with 4 goal hero Didier Drogba to his Chelsea-supporting pal Dean. Dean, subsequently, signs up to the newspaper service. “How does this work then?” he asks.

11. It’s dissertation time — get the archive out!

If Pete’s lucky, his university will give him access to Lexis Nexis, a brilliant archive of newspaper articles. Problem is, not all newspapers are included. Searching is tricky, and it can be quite buggy. For £5 — a one off, he won’t use it again — he has full access to the online and offline archives for all UK newspapers (or, indeed, the world’s newspapers!). If he’s struggling, all consecutive weeks of archive use will just cost him an extra quid. Pete is thankful — his dissertation is bloody brilliant.

Karen the stay-at-home mum, 35

12. Karen cares about her childrens’ education…

Karen wants to know everything there is to know about schooling and education. She wants league tables, inspection reports and real-life case studies. Does she have time to sift through the paper every day? No way! For £1 a week, Karen recieves a weekly digest of the important stories of the week in education. If she buys a newspaper on Sunday, she can use a voucher to get this digest for 50p. Again, if she subscribes for a week, she gets a discount.

13. …But that’s not all she’s in to

Education is important, yes, but Karen would get bored (and probably quite depressed). So as part of a bundle offer (think Sky subscription packages) Karen can choose two other sectors to get digests for — for just £1.50 per week. That’s less than half price!

14. Loose Women — let’s go online

(for my non-UK readers, Loose Women is a daytime chat show with a panel of four or so middle-aged women.)

Karen likes to get right stuck in with Loose Women when it’s on. Sure, they’re whiny, and she can’t stand one of them, but she likes the relevance and indeed the fun the show brings. For 20p, Karen can join in with the online webchat each day. She chats about the issues covered in the show and has fun with other likeminded people, all from the comfort of her home.

15. Karen is an avid reader, but hasn’t got time for a book club

Before they moved onto that strange digital channel, Karen really loved the Richard and Judy book club. It made the tricky task of picking the wheat from the chaff much easier. For £1 a week, Karen can subscribe to the newspaper book club. The literary editor will preside over the suggestions, and subscribers will get money off the featured titles. Every week, a distinguished author will be on hand with interviews, podcasts or webchats.

Phil the news junkie, 26

16. Phil wants to be up-to-date, all the time

Phil can’t get enough news. He always likes to be the first to know. He follows all the social media services, but what he’d really appreciate is a human filter. For £1 a week, Phil gets access to the human-powered breaking news wire. The wire editor’s job is to filter meaningful tweets, images, links and news snippets and bring them to Phil. The editor is doing the leg work so Phil doesn’t have to.

17. Phil knows he is likely to spend a lot online, so he deserves bulk discounts

Each month, Phil is spending around £20 on micropayments. That sure is a lot! His loyalty should be rewarded. If he adds his newspaper credit in chunks of £20, he gets £5, absolutely free.

18. Phil treats his newspaper credits like an Oyster Card

(For non-UK readers, an ‘Oyster Card’ is a pre-pay card for London transport)

If you spend more than a certain amount on an Oyster Card in one single day, any trips for the rest of that day are included in that price. Nifty. Likewise, when Phil spends a lot of time reading one particular newspaper, he could end up spending the same amount as the cover price. If this is to happen, Phil automatically unlocks the rest of the ‘paid’ content for that day. Lucky Phil!

19. Phil spends SO much, he’s now a priority member

Phil is really valued by newspapers. He spends a lot. So, whenever newspapers are promoting a special event, or book, or film… Phil is the first to know. And Phil gets first refusal.

20. Phil knows a big story when he sees one

Phil is shocked at the recent revelations revealed by the Daily Telegraph about MPs expenses. He wants to know everything about it. Fortunately, for £1.50, Phil has access to all articles relating to the expenses issue. All analysis, commentary and opinion is free for him to enjoy and digest.

–

Additional notes

Are these ideas the finished product? No, clearly not. But from what I can find its a pretty extensive bunch of thoughts – and I’d love to see what others can come up with too.

The important bit: What we DON’T charge for

I’m going to try and nip one of the inevitable criticisms of these ideas in the bud straight away. “Why would you pay if you can get the news somewhere else?” Simple: Because what we’re charging for will be unique. You don’t charge for the story — you charge for its valuable extras. You don’t charge for the written interview, you charge for the associated audio clip. In other words, if you site is the only place you can get this information, then that’s when you can charge.

Easy-to-remember rule: If it would go on the Google News frontpage, it should be free.

We also need to know how sites adopting micropayments would fit into the link economy. In particular, what do we do with blogs? Simple: we leave them as they are. Blogs can act as traffic vacuums. By linking here and there, appearing on feeds, getting involved, blogs can keep newspapers involved socially, while at the same time drawing new readers to the paid-for content.

Outdated ideas we need to dismiss

The notion of ‘all or nothing’ subscription walls is outdated and, quite frankly, ridiculous. When someone clicks on an article and is greeted with a message saying they must take out a monthly subscription, their mental response is “But I only wanted to read that one article!”. Just like small top-ups brought mobile to the masses, micropayments can bring paid online content to the masses too.

Loyalty in news no longer exists. If you think there is anyone out there who goes online, reads one source and one source only then you are deluded. Move on.

Crucial factors that must be in place

Do you go to a seperate newsagents each time you want to buy a different newspaper? Didn’t think so. They’re all in the same place, and all bought using the same currency. Let’s bring this way of thinking online. There must be one, and only one, system for paying for newspaper content online. You need to be able to sign in, and be signed in to every newspaper in the world. Only then can we succeed in monetizing the web.

12 comments »

Posted in Blogs, Comment, Newspapers, Social Networking, Sport, The Future, The Web

Tags:

Why micropayments won’t corrupt journalism

May 13th, 2009
Small change guvnor?

Small change guv'nor?

I’m quite bemused at the reaction to the micropayments idea from many big names.

Clay Shirky says:

The threat from micropayments isn’t that they will come to pass. The threat is that talking about them will waste our time, and now is not the time to be wasting time. The internet really is a revolution for the media ecology, and the changes it is forcing on existing models are large. What matters at newspapers and magazines isn’t publishing, it’s reporting. We should be talking about new models for employing reporters rather than resuscitating old models for employing publishers; the more time we waste fantasizing about magic solutions for the latter problem, the less time we have to figure out real solutions to the former one.

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:

Greg Horowitz raises an issue with micropayments that I haven’t seen discussed, one I’d think the heavy-duty journalists would be fretting about: If readers can buy individual articles, then won’t their writers be judged on the revenue they bring in and won’t their editors be motivated to assign more of what sells. Now I believe journalism needs market pressures to be responsive to its market. But every time anyone talks about giving the public what they want, some purist will respond worrying about the corruption of that: the Paris Hilton factor.

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:

What exactly do these people think that newspaper execs will do with data showing exactly how profitable every single article is? Just sit on that information? Or will they use it to make business decisions about which departments, types of articles and individual journalists are delivering the most ROI? “Sorry, Woodward, we know you won the Pulitzer last year, but your articles only generated $97.85 in revenue, so we’re going to have to let you go.” Of course, it wouldn’t just influence the executives. Journalists themselves would start shading their stories to what sells, and the most successful would be the ones who were the best salespeople (or who knew the most tricks). Get ready for a lot less zoning-board recaps and a lot more “Top 10 Sexual Positions.”

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.

7 comments »

Posted in Comment, Newspapers, The Future, The Web

Tags:

Let’s make love, not walls

May 13th, 2009

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:

mps-expenses-telegraph_1242171378405Here’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.

1 comment »

Posted in Comment, Newspapers, The BBC, The Future, The Web

Tags:

Three ideas to make newspaper pay walls work

May 8th, 2009

When Murdoch says it’s happening — it’s happening. No two ways about it.

So when he says paid-for online news content is coming, then I think that means we need to sit up, take notice, and plan for the future.

And — on the face of it — this isn’t a bad future. If this takes off — and if anyone will do it, Rupert will — then it should save the industry as we know it.

So how will paid-for online newspapers work? Here’s three ideas I think need to be in place if it’s to be a success.

A quid for Janet Street-Porter? Behave.

A quid for Janet Street-Porter? Behave.

1. It has to be cheap.

The Independent (that newspaper we love with the website we hate), tried charging for online content a short while ago. Believe it or not, you once had to pay an entire pound to read Janet Street-Porter’s column. Now, thoughts on Janet aside (personally I’d rather dunk my face into a barrel of sick before reading her words), the concept of paying an entire quid on one single article was just insane. The newspaper, at that time, was 80p. The Sunday edition (where Janet’s column appeared) was about £1.50. So how, on balance, does that add up? Any customer that comes along knows that it doesn’t represent value for money. Not even close.

It should be 20p. Or even 10p. Crucially, if you spend enough 10p’s to make up the cost of the paper, all of your day’s reading, from there on in, should be free. Why should it be any other way? You’ve paid for the paper, you should be allowed to read it. Under the Indy’s old model, it would’ve cost you about £10 to read the opinion pieces from ONE EDITION of the newspaper. And we’re wondering why it didn’t work?

2. It should use aggressive marketing techniques.

Hey hey! It’s Free Column Friday! Or something. Let’s not just lie-down and say “right then, everything is 2op, off you go”. Let’s be inventive. Let’s have Alan Rusbridger’s five picks of the day for 50p. Let’s have five Jeremy Clarkson columns for the price of four. Let’s have a loyalty bonus: You’ve read Charlie Brooker for the past 5 weeks? Hey, guess what, Charlie loves you — here’s a sixth article for free. Hell, here’s an EXCLUSIVE article for free. Why not?

Put your online price right up there with your offline price. Advertise content with the online price tag attached. Make it seem like a bargain. Make the reader think “Hey, you know what, 20p isn’t bad. I put 20p in a charity box the other day, and thought nothing of it”.

3. It must be 1-system-fits-all.

PayPal - the model for buying online

PayPal - the model for buying online

This is by far the most important thing. Right now, it seems inevitable that Murdoch will introduce a pay-wall for The Times. Maybe the News of the World too, but that seems a bit far fetched considering the audience. So let’s assume The Times is getting the paid treatment first.

You’ll have to sign up, enter your details, key in your credit card info and activate your account. When you come to pay, you need to be signed in and wait for it to process.

That doesn’t seem so bad, does it? Well, no, but imagine doing that process for the Guardian, the Indy, the Mail, the Telegraph… you’d soon get fed up. You’d soon forget. I never comment on Guardian articles while I’m at work. Why? Is it because I’m too busy? No, of course not. It’s because I’ve forgotten my bloody password. At home it is saved, so I’m in automatically, but I can’t be bothered at work — I’d need to have an email reminder and all that rubbish.

A pay-wall would have the same effect, and then some.

Newspaper publishers need to get round the table and launch their own PayPal. It’s the only way it can work. I should be able to use the same account for every single newspaper on the planet. Or, at the very least, in the UK. But really, the planet. A PayPal for newspapers would be a revolution. It means I can keep track of what I’m reading, and spending, and not have to worry about signing in to 30 different sites.

The ease of use of the system will encourage more and more users. The fact you could read any newspaper with it would mean ‘credit’ could even become a gift: “Buy this bottle of Evian, and get 5 free articles on NewsPal!”

I think it works.

10 comments »

Posted in Comment, Newspapers, The Future, The Web

Tags:

Huff Post UK: Piers Morgan, can you hear me?

April 9th, 2009

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.

Is there any newspaper (online or otherwise) making such good investment in journalism than the Huffington Post? Last week it announced it would be investing $1.75 million in investigative journalism. The new Media Talk USA podcast asks whether Arianna Huffington could be the unlikely savour of the very finest strand of journalism — the investigators.

The Huffington Post is a strange beast. Launching in 2005 as essentially a ‘celebrity blog’, the HuffPo received a lukewarm reaction. Some disagreed with its mission, and others ignored. It was nothing too important — just a load of ego-tripping celebs doing no ‘real’ journalism. Newsweek described its aims as “[to] put heat (and perhaps even shine a little light) on the news of the day through diarylike musings, opinions and links”.

Which, for a good while, it was just that. Blogs, opinion… shouting. All good fun, but it’s no New York Times.

Taking a look at the site today, we can still see hallmarks of its birth, but it has evolved. The main content is still blogs — although for some reason they feel like columnists rather than bloggers, a set up more in keeping with Comment is Free. But it’s now referring to itself as ‘The Internet Newspaper’, dealing with news and video as well as the shouty blogs.

And now it’ll be pumping cash into its own investigations. I can’t wait to see the results — I hope the team can show the mainstream media guys how it’s done. While they’re sweating about re-writing a press release, the HuffPo can get back to the roots of journalism: finding stuff out.

But here’s what kills me: all this Huffington Post talk is very exciting — but it won’t affect me too much. Where is the UK HuffPo? Why don’t we have an online newspaper?

Why aren’t we getting investment for investigative journalism?

So I’m asking you, Piers Morgan. It’s up to you. Call it ‘The Morgan’ if you have to. Grab some friends, some cash, and set up office. Canary Wharf would be nice — you did your finest work there.

I find our lack of a good, well-read online-only newspaper very depressing. And the only thing stopping it is a lack of a big name. Someone who’s mere involvement would get clicks. For the first week — the buzz would be about it being new, but from there on in it’ll be the content that brings them back.

We’re long overdue anything like this. Piers is the only person I know who has the status, the money and, let’s face it, the skill to bring something like this to reality.

Now I know he’s busy with his career as a TV talent show judge/chat show host, but having read Piers’ book, I have a sneaky suspicion that you can take the man out of newspapers, but you can’t take newspapers out of the man. Come on Piers, I know you miss it.

6 comments »

Posted in Comment, Newspapers, Tabloids, The Future, The Web

Tags:

The depressing but inevitable demise of Press Gazette

April 6th, 2009

Today, Wilmington Media announced that Press Gazette, the UK’s journalism trade mag, will be closing.

It’s a sad day — Press Gazette has been a part of many a journalist’s career, from the Grey Cardigan column keeping the old-timers happy, to the Knowledge section showing newcomers the way to go.

I’m proud to say I contributed plenty to the magazine. First, as student on work experience. Being on the newsdesk of what was already a shrinking staff gave me plenty of opportunities. And as I wrote up notes on the train home I realised that I was improving as a journalist with every day I spent there.

There were signs of discontent when I was on my placement. While looking through the paper archives, I was struck by how the print product had evolved in such a short time. Gone was the slick, filled-to-the-brim magazine that screamed “finger” and “pulse” at you. In its place had arrived a cheap-feeling, awkward publication that resembled an internal staff newsletter.

I was told, way back in 2007, that the British Press Awards — the magazine’s big event of the year — was what was keeping PG alive and well. Well, alive at least. It was a real money spinner. Should the awards go, then the magazine would almost certainly go with it. It’s no coincidnce that the Awards happened last week. One last hurrah.

I made some great contacts. Martin Stabe, the then online editor (who is now at Retail Week), gave me what was essentially my first big break by linking to my site from his widely read blog. I repayed this favour by calling him Michael. D’oh. Martin managed to hook me up as the magazine’s Student Journalism blogger — my first regular paid gig.

After university, Martin gave me my second big break, putting me in touch with Nick Reynolds at the BBC. That contact led to my current job on the BBC Internet Blog. I hope and believe that if I play my cards right, I could well end up working for the BBC for the rest of my life.

There’s no doubt that I wouldn’t be in the position I am now without the help of Martin and Press Gazette.

But in more recent times, my relationship with the magazine has been seriously tarnished.

Fast forward from 2007 to last summer. After a month or so of unemployed panic, I was excited to learn that Press Gazette were hiring a reporter. Brilliant news for me — I knew most of the staff, knew the beat, had the skills and even the contacts.

Encouragingly, two members of staff emailed to suggest  I go ahead and apply.

I was confident. In reality, I should have been sceptical. The position I was filling was that of Patrick Smith — who grabbed a great spot on PaidContent. They needed a replacement, or so I thought.

I’d decided I didn’t want the job about five minutes into the interview. I was told that they didn’t actually know if they were hiring anyone. What they’d prefer to do was extend the hours of an existing member of staff from three days (if I remember correctly) to five days. Fair enough — although it would have been a good idea to work their budgets out before advertising for a full time reporter.

But I could let that go detail go. What I couldn’t let go was what happened next. I was offered another placement — maybe (yes, maybe) with expenses. Incredibly insulting — I’d gone from applying for a job to being offered some work experience. To quote a tabloid sensation who is no longer with us: “‘Ave I got ‘MUG’ written on my ‘ead?”

I didn’t. I turned down the placement (or rather, scooted around the offer) and said I was interested in the paid position, thanks. They said they’d let me know.

Weeks passed, and nothing. Nothing until the leaving do of Patrick, which I was invited along to. On the day of his departure, I got a call at about half five letting me know I didn’t get the job. I’m guessing the editor suddenly realised it would be a good idea to tell me before I went to to the pub. After all, everyone there would be congratulating the successful applicant. Or rather, the reporter who got two extra days a week.

I wonder how long it would have taken had I not gone to wish Patrick well?

But that’s besides the point. What that whole furore told me about Press Gazette is that it was a publication in complete disarray. My experiences were just one part of a big mess that started from the very top and tumbled down. It was a publication that lacked direction, ideas and, crucially, money. As a freelance, I’ve waited over 8 months to be paid by them, contiually emailing and ringing to get it sorted out. Only to learn the best way to deal with the unprofessionalism (of their accounts, not the journalists) was to have a great old rant on Twitter.

A great shame. Journalism needs publications like Press Gazette, but long gone are the days where it had any real drive or clout. MediaGuardian, big in budget, has flattened it into a mere pancake of irrelevance.

Is it risky to have the dominant media publication tied to a newspaper? Probably, but MediaGuardian still reports discontent at the Guardian Media Group, so, on the surface at least, it seems to be ok. And if not, bloggers and other sites can make up the gap.

Maybe Press Gazette will rise up from the dead like it has done in the past — but I don’t see it. This collapse goes well beyond the credit crunch. A magazine that I held in very high regard has fallen from a once great height, leaving me with a very bitter taste in my mouth.

The journalists at PG only found out of the closure today too. Not surprising — given my experience there. I wish them all the very best of luck finding other work — when you look at the size of the staff, to put out that much good content was an amazing effort, and they all deserve to be better paid and appreciated.

There’ll be coos of nostalgia for Press Gazette in the press for the next few days, but, with tinges of regret, it really is time to let it go. They say the website will remain, but I think we all know it’ll just be the job site and little else. Roy Greenslade has put out this plea for a buyer — but I don’t think any publishers will touch it.

11 comments »

Posted in Comment, My Work, Student Journalism, The Web

Tags:

Twitter to introduce paid pro accounts

March 26th, 2009

Dug away in an article about Twitter in the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Stone says Twitter recently hired a product manager to oversee the development of commercial accounts. The accounts would offer users more features in exchange for a fee, but Mr. Stone says Twitter hasn’t set a launch date for them.

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.

But I sense advertising will be little more than a nice slice of the bigger pie: the pro accounts.

Offering special accounts to businesses is a way of making  a shedload of cash while still managing to retain its massive userbase.

I wrote about what a pro account could involve a little while ago — and it seems like some of those predicitons are going to come true, namely this thought:

Say you’re a publisher. You want to reach people in as many ways as possible. Currently, you have to just hope they’re reading their feed and they spot you. How about, for a fee, Twitter gave you the ability to allow any user — not just those with Personal Premium accounts — to subscribe to SMS updates from your feed.

Your fee would depend on two things: How often you post, and how many people subscribe. In other words: how many texts are sent. In the same way that websites have to assess their bandwidth costs, Twitter publishers with Publisher Plus priveledges will be able to monitor their reach — upgrading if neccessary.

I also suggested a personal pro account — something I still feel would work. But, from a public relations point of view, Twitter are wise to begin by charging the rich people.

Since then, I’ve been thinking a little more about how Twitter can make money and, if they go ahead with pro accounts, what should be in them.

In my job as co-editor of the BBC Internet Blog, part of my day-to-day task is to monitor what is being said over social networks. Twitter being the most useful. To do this, we have a Pageflakes account which searches various terms like “BBC” or “iPlayer” and so on. I keep an eye on this.

A pro Twitter account should do this for me. It should allow me to track RT’s relating to the BBC. It should allow me to have a league table of most linked to sections of the BBC website. It should have a Tweetgrid-style interface built in to a pro account control panel which I could use to monitor things as I do now — without the need for Pageflakes.

The pro account should give me statistics for my Twitter feed. As a normal user, sometimes I get a flurry of follows during the day and I’m left asking them where they came from. Sometimes I get a reply, sometimes I don’t. Twitter should be able to tell me — if I was running a company I’d want to know if I was being followed as a result of negative or postive press.

But most importantly: a pro account holder should have the ability to send text messages to all their followers (if they opt-in, of course!). The value of that really cannot be understated.

Update:

More about the plans on Silicon Alley Insider:

Commercial entities like Whole Foods, Starbucks, Mission Pie, 52 Teas, JetBlue, even the Korean taco truck guy are all on Twitter—users and businesses alike are finding value.

Our question is, how can we help? What can Twitter offer for a fee that will improve the experience? Will it be account verification? Will it be lightweight analytics? Will there be opportunities for introducing customers to businesses on Twitter.

So many questions. But the key is to understand that Twitter will remain free for all to use—individuals and companies alike. We are thinking about simple business products that enhance and encourage what is already happening.

No comments »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The BBC, The Future, The Web

Tags: