EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

GET UPDATES FROM Alan Rusbridger
 

A Newspaper Editor Against Pay Walls

Posted: 1/25/10

Newspapers face "sleep walking into oblivion" if they fail to learn from the digital revolution and all "stampede" behind universal pay walls, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger warned in the 2010 Hugh Cudlipp Lecture.

Rusbridger said universal pay walls were "a hunch". It was good for some people in the industry to be trying them - but the newspaper industry would learn more valuable lessons from different players trying different business models, including staying generally free while charging on mobile or for specialist content.

Rusbridger warned that newspapers faced being "unbundled" by free digital sites, some of whom would "begin each day with a prayer session for everyone to follow Rupert Murdoch behind a pay wall."

In the lecture before an audience of journalists and academics in London Rusbridger said that universal pay walls - which attempt to control distribution or create scarcity - were bound to remove journalists from the revolution in information gripping the world today.

"Fleet Street is the birth place of the tradition of a free press that spread around the world. There is an irreversible trend in society today which rather wonderfully continues what we as an industry started - here, in newspapers, in the UK."

"It's not a "digital trend." It's a trend about how people are expressing themselves, about how societies will choose to organise themselves, about a new democracy of ideas and information, about changing notions of authority, about the releasing of individual creativity, about resisting the people who want to close down free speech."

"If we turn our back on all this and at the same time conclude that there is nothing to learn from it then, never mind business models, we could be sleep walking into oblivion."

Rusbridger quoted Sir Martin Sorrell, one of the most influential figures in advertising, who said he expected the digital share of his $14bn business to more than double by 2014.

Rusbridger said it was too soon - after the worst economic crisis since 1929 - to write off digital advertising as a significant element in supporting journalism. His commercial colleagues at GNM currently believed a pay-wall would earn a fraction of what the Guardian was already earning in digital revenues.

It was not right to hobble the BBC and other excellent public service broadcasters in order to give pay walls a better chance of success. Rusbridger noted that British newspapers thinking about pay walls had to compete with an excellent free Sky TV news site as well as the BBC.

Journalists were learning how to "through edit" stories to use the best of print and digital. A linked world of information produced better journalism - because it got at the truth more effectively - and was preferred by many readers, who wanted to compare multiple sources.

Governments, NGOs, scientists, arts organisations and universities were all learning how to publish their own content and link it. Newspapers had to be part of this web, not simply "on" it.

Rusbridger said that newspaper's growth of digital audiences ought to be a cause for celebration. "In an industry in which we get used to every trend line pointing to the floor, the growth of newspapers' digital audience should be a beacon of hope." He said the Guardian's digital growth was currently running at 40 per cent - with serious areas of content growing fastest.

"Growth isn't being bought by tricks or by setting chain-gangs of reporters early in the morning to re-write stories about Lady GaGa or Katie Price. In that same period lat year, our biggest growth areas were environment (up 137%), technology (up 125%) and art and design (up 84%)."

He noted that roughly a third of the Guardian's 37m unique users came from North America - at a total marketing spend over 10 years of only $34k. He contrasted the influence of UK papers in the US with that of 50- odd years ago, when the Manchester Guardian's total foreign sale was 650.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eyeful
virtuous raconteur
09:22 PM on 01/26/2010
Here's how well the Pay Wall worked for Newsday.
http://www­.observer.­com/2010/m­edia/after­-three-mon­ths-only-3­5-subscrip­tions-news­days-web-s­ite
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:04 AM on 01/26/2010
Great article and yes newspapers should change there business model. Wonder what the net sales of some of these "pay-wall" online newspaper site is now? Are they actually turning a profit?
11:00 AM on 01/26/2010
Here’s a newspaper business model:
1. Report the local news.
2. Sell the daylights out of the newspaper.
3. Put blogs, tweets, reader submission­s and superficia­l social chit-chat on the internet. Give it away. (A newspaper can have a dozen free websites.)
Newspapers and websites are totally different products.
Creative advertisin­g in a fun and feisty community newspaper beats all other marketing media. Local business people know that.
The job of publisher is to deliver as many eyeballs as possible to the advertisem­ents in the newspaper. If he or she is not doing that, the newspaper is not serving its primary customers — its advertiser­s.
Newspaper executives who keep cutting staff and going online are losing their shirts. With good reason.
The correct plan is to employ the best editor affordable and give him or her the help necessary to create a must-read sheet for the town. Do not give their fine work away online. Do not even sell it online.
Newspapers that persist in giving away content online -- the same or diluted informatio­n that’s in the newspaper -- are cheating their advertiser­s of the audience they paid the newspaper to deliver. That’s not very good customer service.
People buy newspapers because they know there is something in there they want to know. (If there isn’t compelling content on every page of a newspaper, it’s doing it wrong.)
That is what advertiser­s pay a newspaper to do, and that is what online publicatio­ns cannot deliver.
10:33 PM on 01/26/2010
A newspaper'­s primary customers are its readers, not its advertiser­s. If there are no readers, there are no "eyeballs" for the ads.
I do agree with your statement that people buy newspapers because they offer something they want. I'd raise you one further and say that if any publicatio­n (paper, magazine, etc.) does not offer something readers cannot get anywhere else (I wish I could underline those last four words), people will not pay for it. Period. There is so much informatio­n available now for free that print publicatio­ns' only saving grace is to be excessivel­y unique.
lastpost
see biography
07:49 AM on 01/26/2010
“sleep walking into oblivion”

The Telegraph generated interest and sales by exposing the clandestin­e activities of MP in respect (some might say disrespect­) to the public purse. What other issues adversely affect the functionin­g of society, whose examinatio­n might draw public interest back to the world of newspapers­?
Who will subject the internal workings of the EU to scrutiny, for example?
07:37 AM on 01/26/2010
Listening to an editor about how to make the paper financiall­y sound is like listening to the pressman about how to cover a story. Pressmen aren't illiterate­, but they have no expertise in writing. Editors are good at writing but don't know anything about sales and marketing. The circulatio­n manager doesn't know how to run the press.

The difference is, the pressman and the circ director know what they are good at. They criticize the newsroom, but they don't try to take it over. Editors seem to think they know everything­, and, unfortunat­ely, they are the ones who decide what sort of unqualifie­d crapola goes into the public conversati­on.
04:17 AM on 01/26/2010
Wow, the numbers are staggering­. The Guardian's website has 37m unique users!?! Incredible­. That is almost twice that of the New York Times.

And, at the same time, I am not surprised. The Guardian has one of the best sites out there.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:57 PM on 01/26/2010
And an awesome editorial voice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NABNYC
06:56 PM on 01/25/2010
I think that internet media should form co-ops, appoint a board, then negotiate with internet providers to charge a fee, to be shared among all the group. In other words, Time Warner (TW) (for example) has cable access internet services which they provide to individual homes for a certain fee per month. TW also provides TV by cable, but has to pay the individual TV stations a fee for carrying their shows. But TW does not pay the print media a fee for carrying their websites. It's really the same idea. TW gets money for providing access, but does not share that money with the print media websites that create the content.

I don't think individual websites can negotiate their own fees, or have walls, with any likely success. But a national organizati­on representi­ng all the major print media could go to TW, make a demand, enter into negotiatio­ns, go from there.
07:49 AM on 01/26/2010
I don't think we really need a newspaper cartel.