thoughts on paid for content

“The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them. That’s Google, that’s Microsoft, that’s Ask.com, a whole lot of people … they shouldn’t have had it free all the time, and I think we’ve been asleep.”

In my small mind I could not and still can’t understand his reasoning. Like a lot of people I discussed this with, I see the companies mentioned in Mr Murdoch’s statement as gateways to the content instead of content appropriators (is that the word I’m looking for?) Content is indexed, referenced and linked back to the original source unless I have been missing something all this time. Although his demand to receive payment is completely understandable, his reasons aren’t. Or are his reasons just a lame excuse for the introduction of paywalls?

A couple of weeks ago NY Times announced that they were going to introduce a metered, paid for content model for the website at the beginning of next year. Previously run on a subscription model (Times Select), they abandoned this in 2007. Their reasoning for dropping the subscriptions back then

… was that many more readers started coming to the site from search engines and links on other sites instead of coming directly to NYTimes.com. These indirect readers, unable to get access to articles behind the pay wall and less likely to pay subscription fees than the more loyal direct users, were seen as opportunities for more page views and increased advertising revenue. “What wasn’t anticipated was the explosion in how much of our traffic would be generated by Google, by Yahoo and some others,” Ms. Schiller said.

I’ve got to state here that NY Times is possibly the only website that I will visit every day and is quite possibly one of my most favorite websites out there. I got hooked to it when 9/11 happened and at the time, for me, it was the best source of information, from the numerous other sources available. What has kept me so loyal all these years IS their content. Their editorials, their news, their amazing reports, reviews, their great use of written word and new media, their innovation. Whether its business, technology, current affairs or life style there is always something that will appeal to me daily. Is this enough to make me pay though?

I refuse to pay for a TV license although we have 2 TV sets in our house. These TVs though have never been connected to an aerial (tbh I don’t even know if we have an aerial) We use them for dvds, our playstation and our x-box. I never listen to the radio either. Thus paying for something that I do not use is not going to happen regardless of how many different letters, with different wording, the TV license people send me. I don’t use it, I don’t pay for it.

I do pay for music, I do pay for books, I do pay for professional services and goods. On the other hand I would not work for free, unless it involved a charity I care for. When I provide a service I expect to get paid for it. Why then should I refuse to pay for a service that I actually enjoy like my favorite newspaper, that’s available to me 24/7, wherever I got connectivity? I know that in all these years I have been using the site I have not clicked on a single banner. I know that all these reporters, designers, programmers and numerous other staff cannot live on air. I also know that server farms need power and hardware that costs money to keep in order to provide the service to the great standards I have been accustomed.

Aside from the fact that Mr Murdoch’s publications don’t really appeal to me, with the exception of the Sunday Times of which I still prefer the paper version anyway, I don’t really have issues with his wanting to charge for the content he produces. Like I said you should pay for what you use. The metered model the NY Times are said to be working towards is quite a good deal. It’s used successfully on a variety of different products and services and is in my opinion quite fair. You might not want to pay $X a year when you visit the site once a blue moon, but when you are constantly using it why not? After all the paper version delivered to your home, over a year, would cost approximately $600.

Thinking about it, if you give people value then you’re quids in regardless if they came to you via a search engine, direct traffic or word of mouth. Being asked to pay for content consumption is a valid and understandable request. Just because something is on the internet does not mean it’s free, unless otherwise stated. What we take for granted took effort and time to produce and after all time is money.