With the Kansas City Star set to establish a new paywall for digital content on Dec. 5, the newspaper’s executives might want to implement some of the ideas from two social scientists who studied the New York Times’ implementation of a paywall and what made it successful.
An article about the research by the authors appears in the November edition of the peer-reviewed journal “Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking.”
“The pay-for-access policies adopted by The New York Times and many other media outlets will succeed only if consumers believe they’re justified by financial necessity,” says a new report by Jonathan Cook of Columbia University and Shahzeen Attari of Indiana University.
So far, Mi-Ai Parrish, the Publisher at the Star, does not seem to be giving subscribers very compelling reasons to start paying for digital content at the McClatchy-owned newspaper.
“I recognize that charging even a few cents more isn’t necessarily popular, but we hope you’ll recognize that it is a logical strategy to enable us to provide quality local news and information in the increasingly myriad ways people reach us,” she wrote in a note to subscribers.
The scientists’ research of 954 customers shows The New York Times lost readers by failing to fully explain the need for what’s known as a paywall. Times readers must pay between $15 and $35 per month for Internet content that previously was free.
According to their study, the New York Times introduced a paywall in March saying it wanted to strengthen the company’s “journalistic mission” and allow “digital innovations.”
However, when readers were told compelling justification for the paywall—that the Times was likely to go bankrupt, “their support and willingness to pay increased,” Cook and Attari concluded.
Times readers who thought the paywall was merely an effort to improve the newspaper’s bottom line, on the other hand, visited the website less frequently and looked for loopholes to avoid the charges.
“While The New York Times’ paywall may have gotten off to a halting start, it is now regarded as a qualified success within the industry,” Indiana University said in a news release.
“The newspaper reports about 500,000 paid digital subscribers and has taken a series of steps to close the loopholes that allowed unlimited free access to articles. The Chicago Tribune, The Indianapolis Star and dozens of smaller newspapers either have paywalls or are considering implementing them, according to Media Life Magazine.
“Those publishers would benefit from The New York Times’ mistake by more thoroughly justifying the new charges, Cook and Attari suggested.”
Those publishers should also consider this cautionary note: a majority of The New York Times readers surveyed by Cook and Attari said they wouldn’t pay for content and made good on their threat, often by switching to free providers.
“The decline reported in our study is echoed in the decrease of over 3.3 million unique website visitors reported in The New York Times marketing materials between the spring of 2011 and 2012,” Cook and Attari wrote.
VALUE FOR YOUR INVESTMENT
One thing that must be considered in the success of the Times’ paywall is that they provide a great deal of value for the investment.
For one thing their archive goes back decades, not just a few months or years. When I’m researching a topic, it’s great to have verifiable data within a few keystrokes or mouse clicks.
The video and audio features on the site are also first-rate and nicely supplement the text reporting. Essentially, you’re getting more than column inches with Times reporting.
You can see what you’ve just read about and can reach your own conclusions. The Guardian and The Daily provide similar multiplatform information.
Other sites that wish to imitate the paywall format should remember that users want value for their investment and should receive it.
This would include reports that aren’t tied to daily or weekly schedules but that are posted as soon as the data in the stories can be properly vetted.
While jumping the gun to get a scoop can lead to disaster (like the Times’ bungling of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting), sitting on a story when the facts are clear and the public needs the information promptly is also inexcusable.
NOT A FAN OF STAR’S SITE
I agree wholeheartedly, Dan.
I written a number of items over the last year about Kansas City Public District (or its schools) and linked to the Star’s coverage of same, only to discover the Star’s stories have disappeared within a few months.
The Star’s site video is pathetic, reminiscent of MySpace; the pop-ups and pop-unders are enough to make one cry; and overall the content is underwhelming. Overall there is little that will be missed when the Star institutes their pay-wall.
However, as pointed out in McClatchy’s recent 3rd quarter report, the company overall saw a 15% increase in retail digital only advertising, so I would expect –our dubiousness aside – Ms Parrish has been given her marching orders and come December whole hundreds of people will be in for a shock.
STAR NEEDS TO PROVIDE UNIQUE INFORMATION
The Star needs to make the case that it provides content that can’t be obtained anywhere else. The only way a paywall works is if it pours a bunch of money into an investigative unit and long form journalism.
The Star has done some interesting series recently such as reconstructing the Randy Stone murder. But why is it that stories like the multiple Kansas City GSA scandals were broken by television reporters when the Star should be first with investigative journalism?
It used to be that TV and radio news editors read the newspaper looking for stories to cover. Now it seems local blogs and publications like the Pitch are beating the Star to the punch.
‘THE KANSAS CITY STAR IS REPORTING…”
I’m not sure if it’s possible to provide content that can’t be obtained anywhere else. “The Kansas City Star is reporting . . .” By using those six words, a TV station, radio station, blog or website undermines the need to buy a copy of or a subscription to The Star. Exclusives are few and fleeting.
UPGRADING TO NYT
So, if we’re going to pay for content, guess I’m upgrading to the NYT.
HARD TO IMAGINE CONTENT
At this point it’s hard for me to imagine just what content The Star can put behind a PayWall and expect people to pay for that they won’t be able to find somewhere else for free. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is an in-depth version of local news. I think Zack was on to something when he mentioned the possibility of an investigative unit and long-form journalism, but is The Star willing to foot the bill for such an undertaking?
STAR SHOULD FOLLOW USA TODAY MODEL
Having given the matter some additional thought today, perhaps The Star should be approaching the print version of the paper in much the same manner that USA Today approaches its product, which is to say that the paper could be made to consist of a series of briefs that would tell the reader at least enough to let him/her know what was going on but without going into a whole lot of detail. To get the details the reader would also need to be a digital subscriber. This would only apply to Star-generated content, however. Finding the right balance would be the tricky part, of course.
EXAMINING KC STAR’S NEWS PRODUCT
Let’s look at the Nov. 2 front page to see how well the Star will provide news that you just can’t get anywhere else.
We have the headline “Some link megastorm to climate change” in all caps, which is really sticking your neck out, with the silly subhead: “Scientists still looking for evidence, but New York governor and NYC mayor are convinced.”
We have the in-depth story of first-graders in one school in the Blue Valley district studying the election, with “ice cream sandwiches for lunch” a key issue.
We have the joint report from Steve Kraske and Dave Helling about how a “Sears repair technician” in Ozark, Mo., will split his ticket and vote for Romney, McCaskill and Nixon.
And we have the results of the great weight loss contest between Sly James and Jim Heeter.
And for this, I am paying how much a month, certain to go up by “a few cents” so I can read all this fascinated news online as well?
GOOD LUCK WITH THIS ENDEAVOR
‘Target audience’ is prime concern as to the success of this pay-for-play change in format.
The KC Star’s editorial content and subject matter leans left, falling over on its left side left. ‘Ideology uber alles,’ as it were.
Yet, that filthy free market lucre is necessary for McClatchy’s bottom line, darn it.
Me? I simply enjoy a good scrap with liberals, so I’ll probably subscribe.
Yet, with a small news market such as KC, and so many other news venues available via the intertoobs, will the Star attract enough ideologically sympatico subscribers to achieve profitable critical mass in the digital universe?
Good luck to Mr. Parrish, et al in this new endeavor.
KC STAR MAKING HUGE MISTAKE
I sure hope that people making this decision at the star consider the opinion a lot of ”readers” like me (by this, I mean that I know a lot of visitors to this site [bottomline], and I’m talking about ”Joe Citizen” who is just looking for KC area news) think of their paper. I was a subscriber for years until I became so sick of the political slant I stopped buying their rag. I’m not trying to make this into some ”liberal media” commentary, but face it… about 48% of Americans (or half of potential subscribers) know that every article put out by the star is STRONGLY left leaning (I remember looking at their coverage of the first presidential debate, and they seemed to be the ONLY media outlet in the US saying Obama won the debate).
So first, alienate half potential customers with slant, then figure what percentage of those agreeing with that opinion are willing or are able to pay for news. And then how many of those people will think what they find on the star is better than what is on the other 50 local sites, and 10,000 international sites out there. The only reason I even go to the Star, is when the tv station sites haven’t updated a story with details, I check to see if they have anything different.
In other words, a paper like the NY Times can charge because they feature more national stories that are original, along with NY coverage, that people around the world will subscribe. I doubt there are enough Star readers that feel they can count on only the Star to bring exclusive content not available elsewhere.
In other words, this is a HUGE mistake. Especially if they count on any revenue from online advertising. I use apps for my phone that list all worldwide newspaper websites. And I mark the ones that require even free membership because it’s easier to pick a different source. I know I will now be removing my star bookmarks because I can get the same stories (usually with better info and less biased) from other sites.
I just wish I could get the Sunday Coupons without the fire starting material included.