Journalism Online, would-be newspaper savior, gathers steam
Filed under: Columns, People, Media
Hardly a day goes by without some piece of news about newspapers trying to devise fresh ways to get consumers to pay for all the free content they're currently pushing out over the web. Just last week, for instance, The New York Times asked subscribers if they'd pay $5 a month for website access, while Rupert Murdoch mused about what role micropayments and e-readers might play in The Wall Street Journal's future. It's easy to forget just how recent this state of affairs is. "We announced we were doing this in the second week of April," says media entrepreneur Steve Brill -- "this" referring to Journalism Online, the company he founded to help newspapers and other outlets start charging for digital content. "If, on that day, you had called the ten largest newspaper and magazine publishers in the country and said, 'Are you going to charge for any of your online content in the foreseeable future?' you would have gotten a significant amount of 'I don't know," he says.
It's a major sea change, and Brill and his partners -- former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz and longtime telecom executive Leo Hindery Jr. -- couldn't have timed it better. Sometime in the next two weeks, they plan to go public with the identities of their first affiliates. They've been pushing off the announcement for the past month -- not because they've been having trouble lining up clients, they say, but because they've been adding new ones so fast, the list keeps evolving. "We're confident we're going to have a significant number of news brands participating when we launch in the fall," says Crovitz.
And those news brands won't just include newspapers and magazines. "A lot of the focus has been on newspapers because they're in the most dire economic situation, but our engine works for any digital property," says Brill. I asked them whether Journalism Online has signed up any news sites attached to TV news networks such as MSNBC.com and CNN.com, which are two of the top three online news destinations, according to Nielsen. "Just to be fair to everybody, we can't acknowledge any particular ones [yet], but we are talking to ones like those," says Crovitz.
In fact, they're talking to just about everyone. Brill and Crovitz say they have yet to be rebuffed by a potential affiliate. "The harshest answer we've gotten hasn't even been, 'No, let's wait and see,'" says Brill. "The harshest answer has been 'Let's get together and talk.'"
"Some publishers are trying to get a clearer view of their business model before engaging with us," adds Crovitz.
And many have learned that what Journalism Online's offering is more flexible and compelling than it may have sounded at first. Far from a one-size-fits-all approach, the company allows news outlets to customize their pay schemes with 15 different variables. Publishers will be able to do everything from selling monthly subscriptions to charging micropayments for individual articles with a sliding pricing scale based on the timeliness of the news. "What we're giving them is a set of dials they can constantly turn," says Brill. "In no case is is simply charging or not charging. It's not simply a pay wall goes up around everything."
"I think it's fair to say almost all of our affiliates are thinking about the hybrid or 'freemium' model where there'll still be a lot of people who are accessing services or content for free," adds Crovitz.
Some of what Brill and Crovitz are saying sounds almost too good to be true. They claim that publishers who sacrifice 10 percent of their pageviews by instituting a partial pay model will be giving up far less than 10 percent of their advertising revenues because the last 10 percent of ad inventory they sell is low-cost ad inventory. Moreover, advertisers will be "happy to pay a big premium" for ads served to paying readers, says Crovitz. And, adds Brill, newspapers that begin charging for web content will see increases in their print circulation as readers opt for bundled subscriptions.
"The more people look into it, the more they understand they can have their cake and eat it, too," says Crovitz.
Maybe. This much, at least, is for sure: With no better options presenting themselves, a lot of publishers will sign on with Journalism Online to find out if it it can deliver on its sales pitch.
"You're going to see lots of publishers trying lots of different things," says Brill. "And then, as it shakes out, and as we provide them the information about what's working and what's not working, a year from now the verdict could be in."
For the entire transcript of Jeff's interview with Steve Brill and L. Gordon Crovitz, click here.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-17-2009 @ 10:46AM
Edward Sweeney said...
Most small town newspapers are a disaster,not worth
any additional charge.
Reply
7-18-2009 @ 11:43AM
sv said...
Yes that's true, the non-metro sized newspapers have had their way with advertisers for many many years because the circ numbers were in their favor and there wasn't any other media forum to advertise in. I worked at one for many years and let me tell you that the Internet scared the hell out of them since the mid-90's. Back then the average age of our reader was 59 and the younger folks were growing up with PC's/internet so they weren't turning to newspapers for information, they'd just dig it up themselves on the net for free. Our paper operated on a 19% profit margin back then and W.Buffett was even buying newspaper stock!!! After the down turn in circ occurred, the papers started to inflate their circ numbers to be able to keep their ad rates high (Fooling the 2nd party circ auditors by printing papers that went directly to the dumpsters...then claiming single copy sales from news boxes). If all those advertiser saps only knew the truth huh. On the issue of newspapers replacing printing profits with the net...think of it as a race between you using a spoon adding $ to the newspaper using the (Internet) and me with a backhoe subtracting $ from the newspaper (Loss print ad $). You can't replace the $ fast enough to offset the high cost of producing newspapers and the advertisers now have cheaper routes to use, so they have to cut (people, high cost equipment used to produce papers, delivery of the papers, and reduce their building sizes)...all this spells doom for the newspaper business as I knew it. But hay, I don't get the paper anymore that's why I'm on here surfing :-)
7-17-2009 @ 11:57AM
marigwanna420 said...
here is an idea..... since most people still love reading the newspaper.... cut down production, cut it in half.... there are so many newspapers thrown away is ridiculous..... you dont need to make that many newspapers when more and more people everyday are getting up to the minute news online..... instead of getting yesterdays old stale news... times are changing...... climate is changing..... lets stop our obsession with paper..... here is an idea.... start printing the newspaper on hemp paper.... oh yea, thats right, hemp cant be grown in almost every state..... the wood industry has money and can lobby in washington...... the whole system is ass backwards
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 12:16PM
Monte Davis said...
I won't pay for anything online as far a News goes.Period.They will just have to use ad revenue.And as far as the New York Times goes, i hope that far left newspaper goes under soon!!
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 12:27PM
Top said...
Must be a slow newsday.
JO will make an announcement about affiliates they don't currently have on a platform they have not yet built, and you consider that newsworthy?
JO's PR department wins this one.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 12:58PM
franoperas said...
We just got rid of a President who didn't have a clue about anything. He even neglected to have anyone in his administration connect the dots before 9/11. If that wasn't bad enough he followed that up by invading the wrong country. Why don't you just sit back and let the adults undo the damage he did?
Reply
7-18-2009 @ 11:58AM
NoWhammy said...
Keep bleating the party line libfascist. Your "savior" has already had 6 months to do something and the only thing he's done is go on sightseeing junkets to Ghana, go shopping, badmouthing our country, shaking hands with scumbags [Chavez, Muamar al-Qaddaffi etc] all in order to show "change".
Well, change is coming again pinhead--if your Fearless Leader doesn't get something done about the Enonomy (that's ONLY getting WORSE) and Unemployment [already 15% and climbing in MI!] by a YEAR in office that's not POSITVE and MEASURABLE it will be time for him to step down and failing, that time for his IMPEACHMENT :)
7-19-2009 @ 1:34PM
Chester McConnell said...
I hate the move of newspapers to "online". There are millions of old codgers like me who hate to read things on the internet. I read only those things absolutely necessary. My wife, a former school teacher refuses even to try and use a computer. I suspect we still have millions of citizens still above ground who are the same.
It appears that all communications - newspapers, magazines, etc. will eventually go that way. Then, folks, the entire system will crash and we will be back to the dark ages. Hey, I might even like that because the dark ages suited me much better. Ignorance is really bliss.
A real life example follows. I have subscribed to the U.S. News and World Report for 49 years. Last year I renewed my subscription for 5 more years. In my view this weekly magazine was the most authoritative, honest news magazine ever published. But the economy was bad for them too. Three months ago they sent subscribers a letter explaining that the weekly paper publication would now be only a monthly printed version. But hold on. They will send a weekly version over the internet. They claim it will be much improved. Hell it was perfect for me like it was. I could lean back in my recliner chair and read and enjoy and be well informed. The World Report averaged about 100 pages each week. I read it from cover to cover. If anyone thinks I will sit in front of a computer and read 100 pages, they are nuts. So, I did not even bother to to enroll for the internet version even though I could have 7 more years without additional cost. I will just choose to remain ignorant. And , one other thing, I have never, not a single time, got up from listening to TV news and took their suggestion to go to their web page for more in-depth coverage.
Yep, folks, this old world is in a helluva shape and getting worse everyday. I hate computers and the internet. Really.
Will it be more economical for newspapers and others to go to electronic communications? They save paper and many trees. They also save postage, etc. But hold on. Compare their savings with the cost to the person receiving their electronic communications. A computer cost about $1,000. Internet service/ email cost $40 per month. And what about computer repairs? And the cost of electricity to run the dam things. WE are talking about $600 per year cost for each individual (not including the cost of computer). Just think of the habitat destroyed digging up all the ore to make steel and the oil needed to make the plastic -- all to make the computers. Everything cost when you carefully analyze.
Chester McConnell
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 3:54PM
Save America said...
I refuse to watch any of the far left news stations, I watch the Fox stations, listen to KTAR, reach the Wall Street Journal and as far as I am concerned I hope all of the far left newspapers throughout the country go out of business!!! Maybe their journalists will start reports non-biased news. I am disgusted with all of the other station journalists and they deserve to lose their jobs because we all lost our due to their promotion of the worst President ever.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 4:17PM
Bo said...
I don't see how they will save them. The internet already provides news at a truly up to minute rate. I have given up my newspaper subscription because when I read the morning paper, I have already read all the articles on the internet. And more importantly, almost all local news channels do nothing but report what the papers already have. That makes watching the local news a waste of time.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 6:22PM
marsha said...
NY Times???????? I would not take it for free, they are biased and mostly inaccurate, they brought it on themselves.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 6:29PM
Mingo said...
What would we be saving if the papers left , They gave up their role as the watch dog for the people and now just takw one side thus the truth is gone. They got rid of a lot of the investagater so no story is more than headlines. There should not be a bail-out for papers let the people decide if they want to buy
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 6:57PM
chilco99 said...
This is what you get when you sell out to the HOPE & CHANGE Regime. The 48% of us you chose to ignore actually have jobs and know how to read, but you chose to ridicule and deride us. Well now you can choke on your fish wrap and take the "Yes we can" crowd with you.
Reply
7-18-2009 @ 11:29AM
NoWhammy said...
Hear! Hear! I SO sick of his mindless lackeys droning on and on about how "great" their "savior" is. If you dare even ask a question you face an IMMEDIATE wall of HATE, investigation, and condemnation as a "racist". Questioning herr Obama is VERBOTEN. Sieg Heil you pucking fascist Nazis!
Question a Liberal=INSTANT HATE
---
Oh and FTR, Liberals want you to believe Fox News is far Right--the REALITY is, they haven't moved one iota--they're just where they've always been (just about center)--the shift is with the Liberal Media--THEY have shifted to the Extreme Left.
Facts are a B*tch aren't they Libbies? lol
7-17-2009 @ 6:57PM
dragon said...
I write for an inline newspaper. It was a local newspaper that went down this year. It was such a part of our history so I asked to start writing. The paper is still doing okay....but this is a trend we will have to watch
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 8:07PM
Vinny said...
Guess I'll have to keep going to our local library to catch the news. They have all the days newspapers, a nice athomsphere and rocking chairs on the patio. Why bother squinting at an online newspaper when your local library is probably not too far away and happy to see you. I'm not going to pay $5.00 a week to read one newspaper. I'll donate money to my library so they can get that new coffee machine. The newspapers are in dreamland if they think 'pay-per-view' will work.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 8:58PM
Kent said...
The WSJ learned decades ago that, rather than simply print the paper, print what the news means for the future.
For example, on December 8th, 1941, every paper ran stories about Pearl Harbor. The WSJ led with a story about how the declaration of war, which FDR was going to ask for that day, would affect business.
The other thing that papers can do is to look at topics that the news networks, websites, local TV news, and magazines don't cover, namely local news. The Chicago Tribune has covered the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich, the admissions scandel at the University of Illinois, and the need to improve ethics laws and end graft and corruption at every level of government in Illinois.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 9:35PM
KP said...
I suscribe to WSJ on the net out of economic necessity since they now charge $2 at the news stand. I believe local newspapers will do well if they totally went on line as locals do need news about their state, city and neighborhood. You can't get it from U.S.A Today, obviously. However, I do agree with some of you that reading the news from the monitor isn't the same as reading it live in front of you.
Reply
7-17-2009 @ 10:53PM
Lorenzo said...
Many posters, without meaing to, make the case that serious newspaper will not survive, online or not. Web sites are locations for fringe readers. It has become too easy to obtain readings that most favor their biases, and because of fading comprehension skills, it is too difficult a mental exercise to read through passages explaining the complexities of both sides of an issue.
If a fringe reader gets the idea that poor people having babies drives the economy into shambles, then there is a web site that expounds that idea. Many readers assume because they see something in online print, there is journalistic value to the web site.
Newspapers subscriptions online are costly and time consuming, and yet you still have to plow through the advertisements. But outside of government and specialized business publications, they offer the best analysis. And often enough, the journalists writing the articles have a college degree in their respective subjects.
With already dumbing of web sites, and the increasing number of fringe readers, serious publications face extinction.
Reply
7-18-2009 @ 1:06AM
Titangirl said...
well how do tv news people make money? From commercial? So why don't web news people make money from ad, get coke company or ford company to pay them million of dollar?
Reply