I won't pay. The moment any of my online papers begin charging, I'll delete the link in my "Favorites".

We won't.

Memo
From: Organization to kill newspapers completely
To: All newspaper owners/editors that want their paper to die

We've cracked the code! Here's how to ensure your demise -- Charge for online access to your redundant, easy to replace information. That is all.

Newspapers, let me clear that up for ya: No.

Right, we know this. The problem is that if print is dead (as is becoming more obvious each day) and no one pays for online content, how will journalists get paid? The online advertising market is way beyond saturation, so advertisers pay pennies for each pair of eyes compared to print advertising.

Blogs are great and all, but overwhelmingly, news blogs (including this one) rely upon other news outlets to provide the actual news, then the blog itself provides another outlook or opinion upon that. Without the original news, that wouldn't be possible.

The real question is whether readers will pay for content that is not any better than, or only slightly better than, someone else's free content.

Pay? I don't even bother registering for access to content for which registration is necessary. Piss on them.

If they want to make it hard for me to read their content, they must not be too serious about wanting me to read it, don't you agree?

@TCama: With everyone turning to light bulbs, how will candlemakers get paid?

Pardon the inadvertent Ayn Rand reference, but it's still applicable.

@Radi0logy: Easy to replace? Please, elaborate.

In Boston, we have two choices for the news: The Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald. I wouldn't pay to read either one online. There's a saying here that goes, "The Globe is for people who can't think, the Herald is for people who can't read." Pick up either one of them, and it's easy to see why we say this. The Globe makes up your mind for you, and the Herald is the newsprint equivalent of reading a "Superfudge" book (with way more Ernie Boch advertisments, however).

As long as Google News exists, I won't pay for my information. Now, if Google starts charging, then yes, I would pay. But really, that would only be for access to combined content...not from one specific source.

Many people may if the major newspapers do it. Most news still originates with newspaper journalists, there are very few important stories that are actually broke by online or independent journalists. For every one breakthrough that Drudge has, there's dozens a year that the major newspapers have, and until the income can be replicated with online blogs, newspapers will continue to be the originating source in most news making stories.

Many people may not be willing to pay for the higher quality of newspaper writing over instant and free news of blogs, but I'm hoping that a sustainable number will.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: So you're arguing that journalists are redundant. Fair enough.

Do you read, watch or otherwise consume news?

I dunno, my newspaper lets you browse most of the articles for free, but you need to have a subscription (either online or an actual paper one) to access a lot of the extra features and contests.

If you're just interested in reading the top headlines, it's free.

@TCama:

Most of their stuff is AP anyway, you can get it in any newspaper.

@speedwell, avatar of snark:
Exactly, I wonder what happens when a newspaper switches to a registered user only, but still free model. I'd bet their readership drops dramatically.

@TCama: Well, if you want to learn about what happened in the world yesterday, there are lots of free places to find that stuff out.

@LeChiffre: There's no way people will pay for newspaper online news. Not only is it free from other sources, it is usually available hours to days before the traditional news picks it up.

The only way there would be a viable pay-for-news option is if the free news degenerates into a kludge of unverifiable bull***t that is hard to wade through. This is happening to an extent now, but phony news is pretty manageable (fauxnews.com = biased, etc.).

Eventually I expect we will HAVE TO pay for content but whichever paper blinks first will be the one that dies first.

NOPE! NO WAY!

Of course, I can always access Lexis Nexis for free at my school, so it's just a matter of changing my bookmarks...

My current news sources are the free Metro paper I pick up in the morning, and my RSS feeds, which include CNN, BBC, Boston Globe, Honolulu Advertiser, and a few smaller sources. If I see a headline I like in the feed, I head to the main site to read it. If publishers started charging for online content, I would not start paying for it; BBC and CNN would likely not need to start charging, so if the Globe and Advertiser were no longer free, I'd simply remove them from my routine.
I might consider paid electronic subscriptions if I eventually pick up a reader device like a Kindle, but that probably won't happen for the next 2 years or so.

@TCama: Can't out-snark me, sweetie. Did you really think that corporate newspaper journalists were the only God-ordained type? Come, now.

Do it Salon.com style where you have an option to watch an ad for a day pass. Or pay quarter a story. $1 for a day pass. $5 for a week pass. $50 for a year. I think people would be willing to shell out money for content if it's bargain-bin priced. And that would allow newspapers to get another source of much-needed revenue.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: I know I wouldn't pay unless I was getting seriously in-depth analysis and content.

Most sites, like FOX's and CNNs, are lacking. Most of their paragraphs are average between one or two sentences long. Whoo, a whole sentence! Not that sentences equate to content, but when you look at the richly written write-ups in newspapers and then their online equivalents... it feels lacking, as if their writers are paid to space out small bits of text to fluff them up to make them look even more impressive.

You know, the information and reporting in local dailies ISN'T easy to replace -- particularly since local radio and TV typically pick up their stories from local dailies -- but LOCAL NEWSPAPERS HAVE BEEN FIRING ALL THEIR LOCAL REPORTERS. At this point, my local daily hardly has more than I can get from gossiping with the right people. So why would I pay to read that online? If they still had a robust local reporting bureau, I'd consider it, but three short local stories that everyone already knows and a paper full of AP filler? Who pays for that in ANY format?

For those of you who think that readers will pay for newspaper content because it's "better":

Do you also hope that airlines will be able to base their business model off the expectation that their passengers will be willing to pay more for better service and treatment?

@Preyfar: I'm with you. I don't mind paying for in-depth analysis and content. I do so regularly, in the form of actual books.

@dtmoore: AP is owned by newspapers, so if the newspapers want to, they can pull AP from their sites, from Google News, etc.

@edosan: Yes, and as I said before, those sources overwhelmingly get their information from a journalist who was paid to gather it.

There's no chance that any paid-for online newspaper will ever work, with an exception for very specialized publications, like the WSJ. And I'm not so sure about that one.

News has been fully democratized by the web. And, bloggers/personal websites aside, you'd have to get *every* online news outlet to start charging all at the same time for the scheme to work - if 1 credible online news source stays free, then no one else will succeed at charging.

Make your money on ads or sponsorships. Or flail, then fail, then die.

Back when the only alternative to a local newspaper was the twice-daily news broadcast on TV, they might have had a point.

But that day has long passed. There are networks on TV that do nothing but show news, and they all have websites. Even the local TV stations have websites. And all of them provide news. For free.

The moment newspapers or magazines begin charging for online access I go to the local bookstore and read them for free. Sure, maybe its not as convenient, but its still free.

I'm not a fan of newspapers. Not even when I delivered them as a kid to I care about them. The whole things just seems like a waste or resources and advertising garbage.

However, when good editors and reports are not around anymore the ability to get a worthy news story heard will be diminished. I agree with paying for high quality and authoritative content. I suspect the future will be full of well known journalists that strike out on their own or team up and form a loose knit network.

There are reporters I would follow because they are good, not because of the news organization they might be affiliated with. Some might be worth paying a nominal fee to access.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: I happen to work at a non-profit, actually. But whether you work at for Gannett, CSM, a family-owned paper or anywhere else, you still need to pay the bills.

i'm one of those weirdos who pays for a newspaper but also peruses it online.

the fact is, it's NICE to turn actual pages of a newspaper (plus you do read ALL or close to all the articles in a physical news paper) but it's also nice when I'm out of town to be able to peruse online.

i'm a 25 yr old fuddy duddy who hated when my beloved US News & World Report changed to a monthly newsmag with weekly ONLINE only mags. heck I'd pay MORE if it meant receiving a weekly newsmag.

The issue facing news is whether it seeks to inform or profit.

For-profit news is almost universally garbage, from press-release reprints, to fawning product release hype, to embedding and collaboration with those they are meant to watch, to sensationalism, to constant over-reporting of entertainment news. Just look at where the level of trust in newspapers is now.

The question isn't how reporting will be funded, but whether it exists, whether it ever existed, or whether it could ever exist.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: "Better" compared to what? And no, I actually haven't seen your strawman in any of the comments.

@LeChiffre: Agreed. There are too many sources for the same information, and if someone starts charging for it, then I'll just read it for free somewhere else.

The exception to this is when the content is unique to the site; Consumer Reports is a good example. If you have good content that can't be accessed elsewhere, then you might be able to charge for it.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: Maybe, but candles are still relevant in today's world as emergency supplies and for things like romantic dinners. They've taken a hit, but it's still a workable industry

On the other hand, newspapers don't age well and tend to go out of date pretty quickly.

We still get our daily newspaper delivered, but the bill just came and I'm not certain we'll be buying it for the next year.

Our local paper doesn't really deliver any "news" -- no investigative reporting, no in depth reporting, frequent publication of happily supplied "facts" and "data" from local governmental agencies and businesses without checking them, extensive coverage of marginal political groups, poorly written and banal editorials, and I can get all of it online for free anyway. Yep. I've just decided we won't be buying it this year.

The print publication and the online publication should be able to support itself through ads, subscriptions and vendor sales. If not, they need to go to online content only and cut the printing costs out altogether. If it went to web only, I wouldn't mind paying a small yearly access fee to support local news reporting if that was the only way I had access to ANY local reporting. Even though our paper is lame, it IS the only paper interested in reporting the things going on in our area.

@TCama: Public Radio and NPR's website. cnn.com. bbc.com. yahoo.com's news feed.

As for local news, there's always the websites of local news network channels.

All free. All timely. I also have a fantastic local liberal free rag weekly paper, The Metro Times, which has a great website as well. I read San Fran's as well with weekly emails of Mark Moford's column.

The good journalists will still get paid. The guys who are only good enough to write for a local paper won't. Local papers are pretty much rehashed AP stories and a few editorials and puff pieces. Oh, and don't forget the ads. Tons of ads.

Please tell me why yesterday's news that I can find for free is relevant enough to pay for? Giving me the answer that "journalists won't get paid" doesn't work, since, again, the good ones will still be getting paid.

@TCama: Anticipating the inevitable objection. Don't take it so darn personally.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: Don't airlines have a first-class option?

I think it depends on what you're paying for and how you value it. I would be willing to pay to access the New York Times online because I value the content. However, I would not pay to access my local newspaper because it's mostly AP articles and boring local news that I don't care for. At the same time, there is a limit to how much I would pay.

I think $20/year would be a fair price to have total access to the content of the New York Times, or even the Washington Post (maybe). That's less than 50 cents a week for top notch reporting. Again, it's how much you value the service that is being provided.

@LeChiffre:

I might pay to read the onion online... maybe.

@sicknick: "Local" paper is somewhat of a misnomer. People in New York City probably don't read the Washington Post, just like people in Sarasota, Florida, don't read the New York Times. In a way, most newspapers are purely local. Why would I read the Metro section of the New York Times if I live in DC?

What you're talking about is the very small, very local newspapers - these are more of a springboard for young talent.

I guess we'll have to let capitalism do its job. It's clear that print journalism is dead, and newspapers must adapt their business model to survive. It's hard to see how they can avoid a shift to charging for their online content. Now whether or not you think it's worth paying for is certainly everyones choice. But they do have a product to sell and a right to get paid for that product. We aren't entitled to it for free. I can see alot of smaller regional papers going under quick. As for me, I could imagine paying for a few articles from the NYT if they set up some form of micropayment system.

@speedwell, avatar of snark: I've been considering a subscription to the Wall Street Journal for precisely this reason. I really, really enjoy WSJ and I've been frustrated more than once to find that a story that I want to read is only for subscribers. It's a pretty steep price ($120 a year or so) but I'm finding that when I do read original reporting from the WSJ, it's top notch and very interesting. I've learned a great deal from WSJ.

@YouDidWhatNow?: How are you so sure about this? WSJ's site seems to be doing okay with its half-open, half-subscriber format. A lot of open content is original reporting, but a lot of it isn't. It satiates the casual readers, while the diehard followers will pony up for the subscriber-only articles online.

We're really looking for the best source of revenue; online ads, subscription fees, etc.

What about tying the news to an e-commerce site? Let the news/content bring in the traffic, and let the products bring in the cash. As long as your content remains fresh, relevant, and free, it will continue to bring in traffic to the site. The more traffic to the site, the better the chance of people buying stuff.

Advertisements for your own products have the added bonus of not being blocked by most ad-blockers.

I don't (and won't) pay to access any web sites. That said, at least at one time the porn industry was able to make money by selling content online. It might be instructive to find out whether that's still the case. If people still pay for porn online--despite its being readily available for free--then it's possible people would pay for news despite that being available for free as well.

@Al Swearengen:

Is that what you did before newspapers were available for free online?

I don't object to paying a little for content. That content is now free is only part of the problem here. Diversity of sources is another. Right now I can locate and read content from thousands of newspapers, large and small, around the world. I might have to register to do so on a few Web sites (New York Times, anyone?) but otherwise there's little difference between those thousands of sources.

What will happen, though, when all those sources begin charging? Do I have to create accounts — providing personal information, including credit-card numbers — with every possible source? What if I don't want to sign up with some tiny newspaper in a distant town which offers only one article I want to see? I'm not going to that effort just for one article.

Stephen Brill's idea of creating a "paid aggregation service" would solve this, allowing me to sign up in only one place to get news from many sources. (Ostensibly this kind of thing exists already, in the form of Lexis-Nexus, so it's not a new idea nor is it unworkable.) But how well one of these aggregators would work depends on how many media outlets they sign up, as well as how many of them there are. Two or three, I could deal with ... but if there are a dozen, that obviously would defeat the purpose.

Newspapers charging for content is not just a matter of whether people will pay. That's a big piece of the puzzle, to be sure, but not the only one. The logistical hassles are an additional hurdle, which to date I've never heard addressed directly. It's as though this is "the elephant in the room" that no one will talk about. The fact is that the mechanics of making it work are an intrinsic part of the problem, and they will not go away, even if large numbers of people are willing to pay for content.