Category
Marketing concepts |
1 comment »
The dilemma of getting people to pay for online content is a big one. Let’s face it, why would you pay for content when you can get it free elsewhere? Newspapers are struggling with this one, but they aren’t the only ones. Websites that stream TV programs, movies, provide access to games, music, and even regular business owners are running into this same problem. This thought is changing, according a recent Nielsen survey, but we’re still not too open to the idea.
A Misplaced Sense Of Value
At the root of the problem is our collective sense of priority. We’ll easily shell out $200 on a weekend at that bar, $50+ on a new game, and even spend thousands of dollars on fancy company stationery, but when it comes to content, we complain if we spend $20 a month. I’m included in this group as well. Heck, I recently complained about paying $3/month for online music!
I’m not saying that entertainment has no value. In fact, quite the opposite. I think we generally underestimate the value of the content we’re getting for free as well as the content we refuse to pay for. I touched on this a little bit in the post ‘Are Big Bloggers Taking Dirty Money?‘, but I think the topic deserves a bit more attention. I’d also like to bring up a couple of possible solutions.
If you were a guitar player, what would you be willing to pay for a lesson from Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, or Slash? If you love racing cars, what would you pay to spend the day with Dale Earnhardt, Richard Petty, or Jeff Gordon?
So, why do we feel learning from some of the best in our respective industries should come free? Because we’ve become accustomed to getting it for free, but not without some downsides.
The Problem With the Current Content System
It’s no secret that free content has some serious issues. Spam is just the beginning. We often end up having to wade through a pile of junk to find the good content, and then there’s multiple postings to contend with. In fact, I know I spend more time digging through the garbage than I do reading anything of value.
Even paid content today has its downfalls.
If I wanted to subscribe to the Chicago Tribute, it will cost me $10/month. Pretty cheap right? We still complain about it, but let’s continue. I also like reading the New York Times, which costs me another $10/month, and the Toronto Sun, for another $5/month. Then, to get the local news, I can buy the Medicine Hat News for another $12.59/month. This means a month’s worth of information will cost me $37.59, which translates into $451.08.
This doesn’t sound bad at all until you start adding in the content from some of the big advertising and business sites around the web. I could easily be spending thousands of dollars a month, particularly if I had to pay to read my favorite bloggers.
(One last little problem, whether you visit the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Toronto Sun, or the local paper, it’s difficult to find the link to subscribe and even more difficult to find the price! You’d think this would be more important. I’m sure it pops up when you click on content behind the pay wall, but still!)
Some would argue ‘why pay what you can get for free?‘ In this instance, I think quality is the biggest difference, and if I don’t have to search through a bunch of junk to find it, I’m a happy camper! Plus, if they were to adopt my solution, newspapers, magazines, and even video bloggers could expand their content to include more topics and subjects.
(Credit)
Possible Solutions For Paid Content
I would love to see online content providers get together and offer things through aggregation. Let’s say that 200 of the world’s biggest newspapers and magazines get together and offer their content up as part of a package.
How about choosing what I pay for by subject? After all, I could care less about the sports sections and the classifieds. I want to read the latest headlines, business topics, and lifestyle pieces. Let me choose a certain number of subjects for $X a month, or even X of content providers for $X a week.
Maybe I could customize the topics I read about each day. This aggregated reader for paid content would let me select say 4 subjects that I usually read about. I can click to read these four topics, or I can choose a unique set of four subjects for the day because maybe there’s an amazing sporting event I want to read about today instead.
This would help these publications get in front of the eyes of new readers and expand their reach. For example, let’s say you like business topics. Because this new system lets you read the latest business headlines, my local newspaper suddenly appears in your reader. You would have never had the opportunity to read this great content because you would have never known about the local paper.
If the entire system was contained in a reader of some sort, there are additional opportunities for advertising, affiliate sales, and even marketing opportunities for the content providers themselves. And, because readers are already interested in the specific topics, companies would have access to a targeted audience. Everyone would be able to benefit from this, including the reader who wouldn’t have to ignore weight loss articles while reading the food section. (People reading low fat recipes maybe, but I’m thinking fitness sections would be a better fit. With this system, you’d have that option.)
I think a system like this would encourage more people to join and discourage a lot of them from distributing their content free because of the perks. After all, if I knew I could publish my content to this type of system, the added exposure, the temptation of some cash, and the chance to be seen at the same time as the New York Times would be awesome!
I could filter the results like my gmail account and completely customize my content experience. This means, if I’m sick of hearing about the Olympics, for example, I could eliminate all of the content about it with a quick click. If I only wanted to read content from around the province, I could do this too.
Readers wouldn’t have to sift through useless content, and for me, the time and sanity I save would be well worth it. You know the content is decent and you’ll find something of value. Having paid for access to the content, archives would be a must. Let me access the archives free, or let me search my four main topics free and pay a daily rate for the rest.
The other option, while similar to this one is to create an aggregated library. I pay, say $30 a month, and get access to a selected list of providers…maybe as many as 100. These could be selected by me the reader, or I could choose packages of providers depending on what I’m interested in. So, for example, I’m a Canadian who enjoys business and politics, so the Globe and Mail would be one of the big providers in my ‘package’. Those interested in lifestyle and beauty, however, might get Cosmopolitan as one of the big providers in their package.
What Readers Want and Providers Should…Well…Provide!
While what I’m offering here may not be the ideal solution, I think it covers exactly what online content providers will have to offer if they ever hope to make their sites work. In short, people today want:
Customization — They want to be able to find what they want on demand without having to waste a bunch of time digging through crap!
Efficiency — Being in an online format, readers want something that works with them instead of against them. They don’t want to have to dig around through your website to find things that interest them.
Convenience — Because the world is so connected, it seems to have gotten a whole lot busier. Let people call up and read content on their own terms, using the methods that work for them. Let’s face it, I can read a blog on virtually anything that can access the Internet, so of course I’m going to read them while I’m waiting in the doctor’s office!
Quality – People worry that when they pay for something, they’re going to be disappointed. If they know they’re getting content from top providers, this worry just isn’t there, but it also means there’s more pressure on newspapers and other providers to focus on what they’re providing instead of how much!
Considering the popularity of eReaders, smart phones, and laptops, I think paid content has a place online. It’s simply a matter of figuring out what works. Besides, electronic editions cost a fraction of the price, and because there would be no transportation or printing involved, they could focus more on providing good content!
What are your thoughts?
Popularity: 1% [?]