Skip to content

New York Times to charge for content?

Publishers (such as Rupert Murdoch and now New York Times) are once again experimenting with paid content models. I personally don’t care. I’m sure some people will pay. I would likely subscribe to an exceptionally informative newspaper or magazine online. Publishers face a challenge in the amount of free content that is readily available. I say let the market decide. If you want to charge for content, add value. Avatar, for example, is one of the most pirated movies in history. This hasn’t stopped the theatre version from setting new revenue records. The value-add of the theatre experience will likely make the downloaded version pale in comparison. Organizations that choose to compete on a revenue model with free online content, but don’t provide noticeable extra value, will fail.

One Comment

  1. Ben wrote:

    As a content producer, it frustrates me that so much good stuff is just given away; it really drives down prices in the market. At the same time, as a content consumer, I have to admit that I’m unlikely to subscribe to anything at this point. Paid content would not only need to provide “extra value,” but it would have to be remarkable and unavailable through any other channel.

    That kind of uniqueness is getting harder and harder to pull off.

    Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 6:16 am | Permalink