Are you really going to pay for online content? Is that really the future of newspapers?

I’m sure we all know that New York Times and Wall Street Journal are some cool information sources, with professional reporters, with great writing skills, coming with great stories. But so does every other major American newspaper. So what would keep me away from leaving NY Times behind and move on to some other news source? Just think about it: there are thousands of other news websites just waiting to be visited and just waiting for traffic boosts. In the end, it’s all about the advertising, isn’t it?

Are you going to pay for content?

Mr. Murdoch is a great guy with great influence and with great business sense and knowledge. I respect that. On the other hand, Mr. Murdoch is a man with billions in his bank accounts. He’s the kind of man who doesn’t really care if he has to spend ten bucks a month for a subscription on nytimes.com. But he forgets the one really single important thing people care about: the ten bucks they don’t have in their pockets.

For a guy who cares about what happens in his country, who wants to know what’s going to happen with his family after he was fired because of the crisis, who doesn’t know yet if he needs to sell his second car at 20 percent of the price he payed for, those ten bucks are damn important.

With ten bucks, some of this kind of people might pay their food for one day. That guy would surely not subscribe to nytimes.com. Of course, there’s a difference. Some news will be free just like before. As Mr. Murdoch said, only the content created exclusively for the online section. Whatever content they’ll have for the printed version, that’s going to cost you if you’ll want to read it online.

The wrong focus

First of all, paying for online content is cool, but not for the masses. When Mr. Murdoch acquired Wall Street Journal, the first thing he said was: “Quit fooling around and make the news archives free, quit charging for content“. And then the advertising started to grow and the number of pageviews increased. And then, there was light: the revenues from online advertising rised high.

The new philosophy is “Hey, people, would you like to pay to view the ads?“. And that’s crap. Because if the NYT or the WSJ are going to cost, then I’m sure they won’t remove the ads. Because, hell!, why souldn’t we earn more? It’s true, it’s a good idea, but who’s going to pay for that? I understand if you’d spare me the ads… Probably. But the point is people won’t be satisfied with paying for something they are used to get for free. Yeah, right, Mr. Murdoch speaks about educating the public. Well, he forgets it’s the same public he educated to get for free what they used to be charged for.

The good focus

What should Mr. Murdoch do is create a “corporate news department”. Instead of focusing on business-to-consumer, he should focus on business-to-business. I know, what I’m saying sounds like crap. But it makes sense. Instead of giving the people payed content, the NYT or the WSJ should give companies relevant information on topics they’re really interested in and, most of all, they should pay for.

How’s that? Well, here’s how. WSJ has a huge pool of online readers. WSJ has a website. Websites are dynamic. Dynamic means interactivity. Interactivity means that you can create relevant market studies and case studies that you could always sell to companies. 10.000 people answering a bunch of polls on different topics could have relevant results for companies who depend on consumers.

Think about that as a simple example and try to understand why simple research could be a great revenue source. Think about what revenues could bring a complex research. And you don’t even need experts. It’s the kind of work good reporters can make. Do you have any idea how influenced are companies by articles published in newspapers? Think about how influenced could they be if newspapers could do research for the companies. Writing great analysis could bring good money. Make one big analysis a week and publish a monthly 8 to 12 page supplement. Keep the best online and send the readers to the website to buy the supplement or to buy a subscription to read your great analysis. Give them great summaries on better prices. Shoot two rabbits at once.

Why should companies pay

First of all, companies have the money to pay for research. Instead of buying a social market study from a specialized company, paying 1.000 dollars for something mostly irrelevant, why not buy four studies a month with 400 dollars? It’s cheaper for companies, they’re always well informed, and they always get information based on real time research. They will get the info based on the last seven days answers, not based on a questioning finished three months ago. And be aware, I’m talking about online studies made for one single niche. think about how many niches WSJ publishes articles on. Think about how many clients they could have.

Secondary, because a research company doesn’t have the credibility of a newspaper. Their strategy is to get the data in one month and compile the answers in the next two months. So when the results are ready, the market may already be changed. It’s a crisis, you never know how tomorrow is going to be. And, why not, why should you pay people running on the street, trying to convince people to answer to your poll, when you could easily benefit on your website from their needs to be listened?

Third, and probably the most important point, is that reporters know the people better than any office worker from any research company. Reporting is all about talking to people. You have to know their needs, you have to know what they expect from you and from life, generally. You have to know what they want and what they need and how to get it easier and cheaper. You have to satisfy people. And you have to give them information in their language. And you can use people’s language to give companies better communications on what people want.

So here’s the point

Instead of trying to rip off your readers, your own revenues sources, why shouldn’t you charge the ones you know they can actually pay? A company will always be interested in getting the best info that could actually improve its performance. And if you believe it’s hard to do this kind of research, why not partnership with research companies and split the money?

Online content should remain free as much as possible. Otherwise, someone else is going to buy a subscription and rewrite your news. And that doesn’t mean profit for you, it means profit for them. Why not innovate? Or… whutever!