Comments on: Consumers Willing to Pay (Pennies) for News

By: Sean Mitchell

Sean Mitchell — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:02:06 +0000

At least 3 dollars would be a starting point for them. I’m sure over time they could and would evolve the price and offerings somewhat.

By: Dave Doolin

Dave Doolin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:59:32 +0000

Honestly, this is all so very stupid.

Newspapers could charge $10-15 per month if they delivered a mix of free and paid quality content that people wanted.

But that’s the key isn’t it: delivering what people want, instead of what the news industry wants to shove at us.

By: Russ

Russ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:57:19 +0000

I was thinking along the same lines myself, Mark. I would like to see the break down of the survey results and the questions asked. It is very interesting that the survey was conducted online – surely that would be biased as people doing surveys online would be more willing to pay for stuff online (at least that would be my guess).

I would love to see the results of the same survey with the typical person in the street.

By: Mark Mc

Mark Mc — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:14:43 +0000

I was surprised to see that they carried out the survey on the web only – convenient, but could introduce a bias that would make it difficult to extrapolate these results to the whole population.

Personally I do not think that one solution will fit all of North America, Europe and Australasia, where the pace and drviers of change in this sector are substantially different.

By: Russ

Russ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:37:51 +0000

What people SAY they are willing to pay and what they DO pay are two completely different things. It will be interesting to see what actually happens. I will be watching closely.

By: David Walker

David Walker — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:37:09 +0000

Interesting discussion, Jordan. We grew up turning to the newspapers for everything newsy and trusted the source. Imagine doing that once or twice daily for over ten years. I think the idea that newspapers provide better content is still ingrained and will take time to phase out so maybe that’s why people would prefer to read their online news at a newspaper site. . I’d be willing to pay $3 for local and international online news, especially when it comes from newspapers As I said, it would take time to phase out.
.-= David Walker´s last blog ..First Webinar (Almost) a Success! =-.

By: Jordan McCollum

Jordan McCollum — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:19:54 +0000

@Jaan—I think that just illustrates the problem even more. Local, specialized news at $0.10/day/reader? You can’t afford that. But those sites that are charging for news (including the few that do so successfully) aren’t thinking about a $3/month price point. WSJ.com, for example, is $1.99/week.

@Paul—I don’t think that timing has a lot to do with this. All of the content discussed here is online content—newspaper websites, TV news websites, etc. And considering that every single newspaper subscriber (and anyone who picks it up more than a couple days a month) already pays more than $3, I’d say something about that seems to be working, at least better than online.

By: Either 48% or 20% of people will pay for news online ;) « Kindle Review – Kindle 2 Review, Books

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:14:05 +0000

[...] Marketing Pilgrim point out that Americans were willing to pay more often for certain situations – 72% of US respondents were willing to pay for unique news such as local news. [...]

By: Paul L'Acosta

Paul L'Acosta — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:59:05 +0000

Now Jordan, why would I want to pay for a service that’s bringing me the news from the past. Most people are finding out that by simply jumping on Google News you can check what’s happening in the world in less than 5 minutes. Not only because everything is a click away from the source, but also because you can actually get a good sense on what the news piece is about by reading its headline.

If you were watching the news on TV, you’d have to wait for that piece they’ve been teasing you with for an hour (with commercials in between of course). I’d by a paper if the article I’m looking for is worth saving for my grandchildren, for example (.75c can’t beat a good bed story of how things used to be in the past!). It’s not about the money, it’s about the timing.

–Paul
.-= Paul L’Acosta´s last blog ..marketingfails: "It’s so easy to spread information now that it lasts longer and finds more niches" http://bit.ly/4lMYIF =-.

By: Andy Beal

Andy Beal — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:55:29 +0000

If I could get every Marketing Pilgrim RSS subscriber to pay just $3 a month, I’d be delighted!

By: Jaan Kanellis

Jaan Kanellis — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:02:34 +0000

I dont think the fact hat people are willing to only pay $3 is the problem. The problem is they want their news specialized and local. How in the heck is that going to work? .-= Jaan Kanellis´s last blog ..Google Will Roll Out “Caffeine” Update After Holidays =-.