Opposition to paywalls is a “theology,” Rem Rieder said in moderating a one-sided love-session panel discussion about paywalls a couple months ago at the American Society of News Editors convention.
I considered at the time writing a response to the whole panel and especially to Rem’s notion that opposition is a theology (I come from a family of ministers; I know a theology when I see one). But I resisted the urge. I had other things to do, and I’ve written plenty on the topic.
The arguments before and against paywalls have been made extensively and passionately recently at the Columbia Journalism Review. Journalist-turned-entertainer David Simon made the argument for paywalls last month in a fairly short CJR piece and then his many responses in a long discussion in the comments, which I joined. I wouldn’t characterize anyone in this debate as theological, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to call Simon’s argument strongly faith-based.
Howard Owens responded a few times in the Simon comments, then wrote a separate piece for CJR, listing 10 reasons Simon is wrong. He cites facts, dollars, page views and history. It is the most detailed, reasoned, fact-based analysis of the paywall issue I have read, certainly more so than any I have written. I will not try to summarize it here. But if you care about paywalls and about the economic success of the news business, I urge you to read it.
I am glad you shared this, Steve. It;s always good to get more of the meat and potatoes to digest in this discussion.
LikeLike
Paywalls may not work, and getting paid does work … when it occurs.
There are eight ways to get paid in any business Peter Mortensen quotes Prof. Andy Hargadon of UC Davis.
http://localmediainsider.com/detail.html?sub_id=672
Mortensen notes that “Journalism is just scratching the surface with revenue models.” And some of the scratching includes paywalls. It is just that there are too few itches to scratch using a paywall, or so it seems. Howard Owens is convinced and quite convincing.
Without a question newspapers in the main are so diluted with widely sourced content that almost all of what one reads in a major city newspaper is already available for free online.
Ironically, about the only content in the newspaper that is not available for free online is the ads. And rarely are the ads duplicated online behind the paywall.
Go figure.
There is a lesson from PM the leftist adless daily newspaper experiment between 1940 and 1949. In journalism history class, I read that it used to run news stories covering the ads in the other NYC papers to improve readership.
That said, paywalls do work, just not well enough. Clearly digitizing a daily newspaper and hiding it behind a paywall will not keep the doors open, let alone restaff the newsroom.
Owens appropriately strikes at the heart of the issue. Journalism is broken and paywalls as we see them are inhibiting meaningful innovation.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s a little embarrassing that you find his math credible. Read the comments on Owens piece. It’s clear that his cited estimates of a major daily’s metro desk coverage are ridiculous on their face. $50 million – $100 million. That’s about $88 million too much.
LikeLike
I didn’t check Howard’s math, but I find it interesting that so much of the discussion in the comments is focused on one of his 10 reasons. As Howard says, correctly, any of the 10 is reasons enough to kill a paywall. Most of his reasons are unchallenged in the comments, which are fascinating. His projection is no more ridiculous on the high side than Simon’s is on the low side. He was figuring the full costs (benefits, FICA, expenses, etc.) of the 500-person newsroom of yesteryear that Simon adores. Yeah, he projected that high, but you and Simon are nowhere near right on that cost either.
LikeLike
I found many of Mr. Owens’ arguments to be specious at best. He puts negative spins on example after example of new paywall ventures, using biased words like “only” and “meager.” Then he concludes his examples by writing that the early returns of many paywall ventures “might seem impressive…” Huh? Did he just give us half of the picture?
And I do believe if you looked at the initial returns on virtually any business start-up, the results might seem less than impressive. Or could certainly be spinned that way. Even Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Microsoft were slow or struggling start-ups at some point in their history. Take five years of marketing a paywall, then judge whether it is succeeding or not. With all the facts on the table. Mr. Owens seems to cherry-pick facts and even dismisses numbers that aren’t available with a negative tone.
Secondly, Mr. Owens continually mocks the idea that paywall revenue can support a newsroom. I’m not sure that anyone thinks it will. Advertising is the true moneymaker. Paywall revenue is meant to be a source of supplementary income newspapers desperately need. Mr. Owens alludes to Simon claiming that paywall revenue will support a newsroom, seizing on a seeming misstatement to make his point. I don’t know of any credible person in the business suggesting that paywall revenue alone can support a news model.
Thirdly, Mr. Owens claims metered model just doesn’t make up for the lost traffic. His next point is that paywalls don’t work because they’re too easy to get around. These statements seem to be at odds with one another to me.
I could go on, but I won’t. I appreciate the discussion, Steve, because so much is riding on it in a business we both love so much.
I do see more newspapers adopting paywalls with each passing week. One assumes they are run by intelligent folks who study the issue from every angle.
I think it’s clearly the way to go and it’s about perception. People just don’t place any value on things that are free, especially news content. Newspapers erred in not imposing paywalls as an industry a decade or more ago. It’s going to take time to regain that lost ground.
But I think we are heading in the right direction. Newspapers need to restore the perception that their content has value. We need to stand proudly and confidently that what we do, as a whole, can’t be done by anybody else and you’ll pay to see it.
One man’s humble opinion.
John Hilton
LikeLike
[…] as though that justified his “freehadist” reference. I have objected earlier (in this blog and in a comment on an earlier CJR post by Howard Owens) to religion references from both sides. […]
LikeLike
[…] usual, I blogged a few times about the news business debate about paywalls. A December post ridiculing the suggestion that anyone has won this debate was one of my 10 […]
LikeLike
[…] Howard Owens gives 10 reasons paywalls don’t work […]
LikeLike
[…] https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/howard-owens-gives-10-reasons-paywalls-dont-work/ […]
LikeLike
[…] was newspapers’ “original sin” in the digital age and agreeing with him about paywalls and whether to spell the opening sentence of a news story lede or lead (it’s lead). […]
LikeLike