72 Point Blog National News, PR and Market Research Specialists…

24th   Sep

Paid Digital Content

The PCUK/Harris poll ran throughout the week and defined itself as "a warning to publishers considering a paid content strategy". The results show that only 5% of people would continue to use their current favourite news site if they were charged, whilst three quarters would switch to a free site. PCUK decided to interpret this data as "Brits would run a mile" and dwelt on the tiny 5%.

However, what I think demands more attention was the 12% in the "not sure" category. These are the people that are not going to instantly dismiss the idea of paying for content but will lean back in their chair, stroke their chin, and murmer: 'hmmm, I'm listening'. That there are 17% of people who would or might pay for their favourite sites begins to sound a bit less threatening to media entrepreneurs. In fact, it sounds encouraging. And, as anyone who has ever turned a stubborn Brit, with their arms crossed and fist firmly grasping their hard earned cash, into a smiling customer will know: people can't be sure what they might be convinced to buy. It's called sales!

The second part of the survey indicated that over half would prefer to pay a subscription rather than a pay per day, or pay per article (like an ITunes micropayment) . This would slot your news amongst your broadband direct debit, online dvd rental subscription, music streaming service, world of warcraft subscription, and many other online subscriptions which most people thought they would never pay for until they saw how good they were.

Next comes the amount people would be prepared to pay. The answer being (unsurprisingly) as little as possible. What I don't imagine the survey allowing the respondents to answer was "I would pay what I thought it was worth". We pay different prices for different news: 30p for the Sun and £1 for the Guardian. Obviously we wouldn't want to pay 25p for an article on Jordan, but we might for a researched anaylsis of third world debt.

The survey concluded today by saying that people would pay for a digital service "in tandem" with print; that a paper would work with its online content, because "touchable products command tangible economic value but, divorced from physicality and its associated costs, that digital content should manifest itself cheaper." Quite an extreme conclusion in my opinion, as it suggests that people are naive morons who are obsessed with ownership. Just look at the emerging success of spotify to see that people aren't too concerned with ownership. I'm not dismissing the conclusion in it's entirety, it is just that I think it is more likely that people are just used to things the way they are.

But, as anyone who even slightly watches the web develop will know - the internet changes constantly. Technology is paving the way for paid media and technology doesn't care what people think. In fact, technology changes the way people think! Look at Googles Fast Flip. Is this the first step in a Google/News relationship working towards a paid model? Check out the future of e-readers - I am of the opinion that soon everyone will have one of these, and it will sync with your phone, music etc. Maybe you could get a subsidised e-reader as part of your news subscription (hope you're reading Murdoch). It may sound like science fiction, but science fiction does become fact. Furthermore, newspapers entail a massive waste of tree resources, and it would reduce our carbon footprints if we all switched to digital - the Marriot hotel chain think so anyway and are investigating ways to use digital media by limiting the amount of newspapers they deliver in the mornings.

It is uncontestable that newspaper and magazine sales are declining and online readership is increasing, however, charged digital content is going to face a lot of challenges. Personally, I like the fragmented nature of the way I recieve news online, surfing from news provider to news provider and following the links of friends. Will paid content mean that I won't have as much freedom? Will this radical change delimit the freedom of the internet? Will only those that can afford it be able to utilise the net?

Murdoch IS going to charge for content and has already begun to do so. The BBC have responded by refusing to ever charge for its content (what do I pay my licence for?). A battle is about to begin, and it will undoubtedly lead to innovation and change. How do you get people to pay for online news content when they are quite happily enjoying it for free? For want of a better analogy, I suppose you could compare it to the transition from watching TV, using the internet, enjoying hot water for free at your parents to moving out and having to set up direct debits to pay your bills. It is all about growing up. At first it is an unwelcome shock, but in the end, infinitely better.

Written by Oli