My wife and I are divided on whether or not we should spend money on paying for the new NYT's digital subscription pay wall fees. On one hand, as people working in the creative fields, we understand wholeheartedly the importance of supporting all media fronts that produce top-notch quality with integrity and crediblity. Like many people around the world, the NYT's is a morning ritual chock full of information and opinions that help us formulate how we view the world and how others view us. We understand that a news operation as rich and complex as the NYT's, there are fixed costs and staff to support to produce it every minute of everyday. As someone in the content generating business, I know first hand that there is the cost to produce excellent work and there is the reality of the margins necessary to make a profit on that same assignment. That's the nature of the business me an others find ourselves in every day. It's even that much more gratifying when clients continue to utilize and pay for what you have to offer. You know you've done and are doing something right.
Which is why in this new digital-all-consuming-media-content environment we live in today it's even that much more challenging to lay out your hard earned money for stories, images, videos, etc that may not exactly be similar but good enough to satisfy your media consumption need and not pay for it! So, for my wife and I, the LA times isn't excatly the NYT's but it's free for us and I think that's what's so problematic for some pay-wall media companies like the NYT's. Yes, brand loyalty and recognition are paramount decision makers for many consumers but when you go from offering it for free from day one and then begin to charge for it the next day it's hard to justify it. As Jeff Jarvis always preeches, " sharing is caring" mentality in this new "link economy" we live in there might be more value in allowing your readers to share links on facebook or other social site and monetize that way. How do you think Google pays for its lunch every day?
Mark Cuban's blog post the other day, " How Netflix is Hurting YouTube" http://bit.ly/gZQYzL compares how different both of these media entities have approaced their respective buisness. While one believes that consumers will pay as low as $7.99 a month for quality content streamed on all types of platforms, another is trying to aggregates lesser quality content from all sources in hopes of driving traffic and masses to a scale larger than any network or studio can imagine. But, as you read his post there are some obstacles and perceptions that may prove difficult in the end. Different from the NYT's , Netflix began charging for access from day one. Will people pay for YouTube channels?
In the end, the question this blog post poses, " Who Is Paying For Quality Content," is one that us as consumers are making decisions not just on our personal consumption budgets but more importantly on how much we value the content we are being charged. My wife and I hardly go to the movies just because the quality of what's out there is garbage and we don't feel that spending $25 for a bad product makes sense. Even if our local theatre was offering the chance to go to the movies for free we still wouldn't go based on how much we value our time and what we are being asked to sit through. If Hollywood makes good stories us and others like us will pay for it. It's that simple.
It will be interesting to see h0w the NYT's will do in the future. I hope it does well and maybe I'll pay for it but I never would have had a problem if you charged us from day one. And I think that's the mental barrier as a consumer that might have lost me as a NYT's reader!
