To pay is my answer. In this digitally fragmented world, I
believe paywalls are a smart strategy for newspapers that have a unique value
proposition. And only those newspapers with a unique value proposition like the
Wall Street Journal and The New York Times can be successful at
implementing a pay per view strategy. With the rise in internet consumption and
the introduction of new social media mediums like reddit “The front page of the internet” people don’t need
newspapers like they needed them before. We can get information from hundreds
of different sources such as blogs, Twitter, RSS feeds, Google alerts, niche
news organization, etc. It’s no longer just about the news but it’s about
offering readers a unique experience and compelling content. Sound
familiar? Like with any other product, consumers will always pay more for a
product if they perceive it to be of high value. I am willing to pay $15.99 a
month for SHOWTIME
just to watch Homeland.
The real question comes down to are these newspaper
organizations differentiating themselves from the rest of their competitors.
Is their offering unique? Is it perceived as valuable? If it is, there is no
reason for a paywall not work.
I commend The New
York Times for seeing the writing on the wall early and adapting to
their new reality. Many newspapers like the Washington Post were critical of
the New York Times in 2011, but since then have implemented their own paywalls.
What are you willing to pay more for?
I love this article because it agrees with my opinion that it is the brand that makes people willing to pay. If the brand promises consumers enough value, payment is not a problem.
ReplyDelete