It is the dawn of a new era, one where floundering online news sources have begun to charge readers for Web content just to keep some of the nation’s most historic papers from going under.
Readers have expressed mixed reviews after the New York Times recently informed the public they would be finalizing plans that would require some readers to pay a fee for their news content starting in 2011.
No matter the amount of readers that have taken the news lightly, some remain stiff-necked on refusing to pay for their news.
Think about it though; most marketing or research Web sites like Yankelovich.com already charge for content; some magazine sites like Consumerreports.com charge for use; and the Amazon Kindle has already hacked into its user base, charging readers for daily digital newspaper deliveries.
Which poses the question: If other news aggregators are already charging, why shouldn’t the news sources themselves?
Rupert Murdoch has already adopted a way of charging for access to the Wall Street Journal’s Web site, and it has done surprisingly well.
There has even been talk of Murdoch introducing the method to some of his other publications and even Hulu.
The Kindle has not only gotten away with charging users $13.99 per month to receive their daily dose of news but they have also made bank by taking 70 percent of subscription revenue.
On top of that, Amazon demands that content owners allow it to republish material.
Really now, who is being robbed?
As hard as it is to have to dig into our already shallow pockets, charging for Web content may be the only way to save the journalism world as we know it.
This is the ASU Downtown campus after all; a good portion of students are here to study journalism.
According to the Editor and Publisher International Yearbook, total paid newspaper circulation has dropped over 11 percent since 2005.
Newspaper sales are down while the costs to produce them have been on a steady incline.
This means more and more journalists are fighting to keep their jobs.
Some people may feel ripped off being forced to pay for news content, but what other options do newspapers have?
Advertising through the Internet is only a fraction as successful as it is in hard copy, so the revenue newspapers receive from advertising is too meager to sustain multi-million dollar publications.
Although the Times has not announced a solid outline yet, it plans to start charging frequent online viewers who have do not already subscribed to the paper.
Sure the switch will ruffle some feathers, but ultimately, it’s the best move news sources can make.
And hell, if products like the Kindle can charge for content that isn’t even its own, news sites certainly can.
Contact the reporter at ldisanti@asu.edu
