Article: "Can We Be Persuaded to Pay for online news?"
As I scrolled through my BBC newsfeed app on my phone, this article title caught my attention. My first thought was "Um, no." So I decided to click on the link and read.
The article is about a young Dutch journalist who has created a means by which readers may select an article topic that interests them and pay up to $.90 to read it. If they are unsatisfied with the article, they are given a refund. His idea is called Blendle and it is a subscription based service that all of the Dutch newspaper outlets have opted to use as a forum. Currently about 500,000 readers have signed up for the service while only a one fifth of them have paid to read an article. To me, this doesn't sound very promising or lucrative, despite the founder's optimism. Although the Dutch and American news outlets are presumably very different, I wouldn't pay anything for what Graber describes as "soft news". Evidently Blendle subscribers are opting to pay for opinion and background pieces rather than "hard news". Blendle hopes to reach the United States, but how successful could it be? Would readers who are seeking gossip pay to read it? Readers who seek gossip articles tend to be younger with less disposable income. What about people who prefer to seek informative fact based journalism without the opinion of the author?
However, if all of the news outlets who provide news via apps chose to charge for the app, would you pay for it?
What do you think? Would you pay to read articles if they were more opinion based or fact based?
I think it is a pretty good idea actually. I mean, at least people are being exposed to his app, regardless if they pay or not. He can still draw revenue from advertising. He compared his results with that of Spotify who has a huge number of unpaid users. I don't think I'd pay for the app, personally. There are simply too many free venues of information.
ReplyDeleteKatie, I think that Blendle is an interesting concept but to pay for each article is where it loses me. I agree with you that it does not sound lucrative. My mind immediately goes to the fact what if people are just cheap and read articles and continually ask for refunds even if they enjoyed the article. I think that it could force journalism and journalists to step it up and provide hard news since people would be paying for each piece. My only worry with the level of competition is the inflated stories and false headlines. I would personally pay a onetime fee for a news outlet app but each article I would not.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting to me because it's the first time I've seen this model on an internet medium. NPR/WABE runs itself the same way. It is a public owned radio station that runs no ads to pay for itself, relying on your donations in the Fall and Spring. While there are many that are freeloaders, there are those who appreciate it enough to donate sometimes large sums of cash. It's been this way for a long time now, and it seems to be successful. The radio station also provides incentives for being a sustaining member to them, which Blendle probably could use. Although I wouldn't pay for it myself, I'm sure it could pay for itself 20 times over via it's celebrity gossip readership.
ReplyDelete