Are You Willing To Pay for Content?
June 16th, 2010
You’ve probably heard the buzz. Some content providers on the Web are beginning to consider asking users to pay for the content. WHAT? We are all so used to content on the Web being free, that it almost seems like a foreign concept. However, many sites have charged for content from the beginning. Encyclopedias, How-To sites and others have traditionally charged a fee to view their information. Really it’s only fair. It is their content, why should they give it away for free? Some might say that this has given rise to such sites as Wikipedia. A very useful site, but many teachers and professors will not allow students to use it’s content, as it is open source and anyone can contribute. The information is not guaranteed to be correct.
So, do you read your local paper online? I do -it’s free, and some days I only have time to read a few sections anyway, or just need a quick look at the classified ads. Some sections aren’t immediately available, it is a day or two before you can see them online, but breaking news is always there. One way to encourage folks to subscribe to the paper. Our local paper, the Canton Repository, is considering the option to charge for content. Already you have to be a registered user to be able to view most of the content, so they are able to see how many people would potentially purchase the service, were they to request payment. The Wall Street Journal has always charged for an online subscription.
What types of content would you be willing to pay for (Let’s keep it clean here!)? Would a more widely accepted encyclopedia for the kids school work be on your short list? How about a mechanics how to guide? What are the chances that all those recipes you look up will suddenly come with a price tag?
What types of content do you feel should remain free? Many places charge a nominal fee for access to public records, which you’d think should be free, but someone spent time and money uploading them, so I guess they can charge a fee, the same as if you’d gone to the courthouse and paid for a copy in person.
The free sharing of information is the cornerstone of the Web, yet many site owners feel that they cannot garner enough revenue from ads to cover the cost of running their site, which is leading so many to consider the possibility of charging for content. I can see their point, if it is not generating income, then something needs to change, although I am not sold on the idea that charging for content is the only solution.
Polls suggest that I am right on that score – people just don’t want to pay to read content online. I do think it’s more of a moral imperative – they just don’t think they should have to pay to read online – or watch TV, or lots of other things. In a recent (January) poll, 77% of respondents said they would not pay to read newspapers online. In a much more recent poll (May) users voted 63% would not pay for blog content.
Are you a site owner facing this dilemma? What do you see as your options? You know what I am going to say, but I’ll go ahead and say it…
If you have a site with valuable content, then perhaps a review of your marketing budget and efforts is in order. Some additional ads, along with some SEO efforts to drive more users to your site to click on those ads would be a better way to go than alienating the people that have supported your site thus far. I know what you’re thinking, it always comes back to that, right? But, you know how it works, the more you spend on marketing, the more money you make, and that’s what this game is primarily about.
