News Paywalls and the Inevitable Dwindling of Audience
In 2011 a reckoning of sorts seemed to happen in the Australian news media. Something that confused the hell out of the audiences of the News Corp and Fairfax Media digital news websites when it was announced had arrived.
The paywall.
Readers of the papers closest to where I live and what I happen to read myself, The Herald Sun and The Age (Melbourne newspapers) commented on the articles announcing the news of the paywalls with shear shock and resentment. People couldn’t believe that these newspapers who had been giving away their news for years on their respective websites would have the gall to start charging. It seemed so foreign to their Victorian readership even though overseas newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times were fleshing out their new paywalls to similar reception.
I’ve read the news digitally more and more since I really began to take an interest in the early 2000s in my twilight teen years. I used to read the newspaper that was delivered to our household, The Herald Sun, every day. I also used to read a local newspaper delivered twice a week. I liked reading the news that affected me including local, national and international stories. I, of course never had to pay for this as my parents were the ones paying for home delivery of these papers. So although I valued the newspapers I was reading it never occurred to me at the time I would have to pay for them.
The fact that all the newspapers I read were putting their news stories up on their websites to read for free in the first place just as I was becoming a news consumer did nothing but get me more interested in consuming the news media. I still to this day follow a routine of news consumption when I wake that includes checking the homepages of The Age and The Herald Sun. So they seem to have gotten me from an early age. The Herald Sun because it was bestowed upon me by my parents. The Age, a centre-left leaning Melbourne publication from Fairfax Media that I got into because they provided news that was relevant to me and did it for free. I also loved a television and tech themed section called The Green Guide, which also listed computer classifieds and was where I purchased one of my first computers. Yes, this was a while ago if classifieds were still a thing.
My own journey towards paying for news and more came about due to me being such a huge news consumer in the first place. I started reading mobile news sites pre-iPhone/iPad on old Nokia and Motorola phones when I wasn’t reading on my desktop computer. The smartphone and tablet with in my case the iPhone and iPad really revolutionised news consumption for me. That lean back experience. I don’t think I really looked back from my desktop when I consumed news after that. With the smartphone and tablet came apps and early news organisations created news apps. Magazines were the first to start charging on an issue by issue basis. I certainly tried a few issues here and there.
These are the news publications I now subscribe to in order of most valued to least valued:
The Age — $239 AUD a year
I really like The Age. It’s my go to newspaper at the start of everyday. Meaning I visit the newspaper homepage everyday. It’s been hit by cost cutting though and is increasingly relying on wire copy news written by other news organisations.
The Herald Sun — $56 every 4 weeks (including newspaper delivery[my parents get this delivered — I just use the digital subscription])
The Herald Sun is a worthy read for any Victorian although they do have a right leaning bent and many right wing leaning columnists including the notorious Andrew Bolt.
The Australian with The Wall Street Journal included — $32 AUD every 4 weeks
I mainly subscribe to The Australian so I can access their famed Media section but also because it’s cheaper to access The WSJ this way than signing up direct with them.
The Guardian Australia — voluntary $100 AUD yearly donation
Consistently great news from Guardian Australia. Well worth the yearly $100 donation. I’ve given for two years running since they announced their donations sustainability drive.
Crikey — $139 AUD a year (a discounted promo rate)
A niche left wing Australian in the weeds political news email newsletter and website that is usually part of my news consumption day.
The Information — $299 USD a year (usually $399 USD a year but I got a discount for threatening to cancel)
Amazing tech writing at a premium price. I’ve gotten two discounted years but at this rate I wouldn’t mind paying full price for the in depth tech industry news. Jessica Lessin, The Information’s founder and CEO is fully invested in the paywall.
The New York Times — $6.40 AUD every 4 weeks
I’ve subscribed to The NYTimes on and off since they first announced their paywall. They usually have a few great articles to read and occasionally they will have an article that blows your socks off.
The Financial Times — $335.40 AUD a year
Kind of regret signing up to this one. It was my first year subscribing and i don’t think I’ll renew. The reason I signed up in the first place was because FT stories were always coming up on my news aggregator app Nuzzel.
Stratechery Premium — $10 USD every month
Brilliant tech business model analysis from Ben Thompson in email newsletter form as well as on his website. He just unveiled version 4.0 of his whole strategy so I resubscribed. His podcast, Exponent is a must listen on tech business models.
The Washington Post — $39.95 USD a year (promo rate before it goes up to $99 USD a year)
Has the occasional massive story. But I’ve found myself disappointed with it since subscribing. Not relevant enough to me. Think I’m gonna cancel it when it comes time for renewal. Of course I can see myself reading more than the paywall limit per month so I might be begrudgingly back.
New Matilda — $100 AUD yearly
Aussie independent media news site that does great work on Aboriginal affairs and Australian politics.
Independent Australia — $100 AUD yearly
Similar to New Matilda. Nothing can hurt supporting these two independent news organisations who operate on the “sniff of an oily rag” as their founders sometimes say.
So now I’ve laid it all out there and some of you must be thinking I am wasting a huge amount of money when I can get similar news for free. Perhaps you are right. But I like to think I get value out of most of the publications I subscribe to. And besides I frequent many free ad-supported news sites as well. If I don’t feel I’m getting value out of a subscription I will not hesitate to cancel it or just not renew the paywall when the time comes.
Of course there is only finite time in the day to consume all the news from these paywalled and non-paywalled news sites. And I admit sometimes I don’t circle around every news site I’m subscribed to. The fact of it is the news sites that keep me interested will keep getting subscription dollars and the ones that don’t hold my attention will find themselves CANCELLED!
Analysis
This comes to the point of the article. My thoughts on paywalls for news and my actions may seem separated. I subscribe to more than my fair share of paywalled news. But I can see that paywalls are anti-sharing. I spend a lot of time trying to share paywalled content with friends and family by multiple screenshotting and cropping articles and than sending them as images. It’s not ideal and time consuming but shows that the articles behind paywalls can sometimes be very worth sharing.
There are usually two types of paywalls. Hard and soft. Hard means you can not get access to the article without paying. And soft (or metered) lets readers have access to a limited amount of articles before hitting the paywall. There are many ways to get around soft paywalls so news websites with those are sort of less affected by the sharing problem. But hard paywalls now more than ever due to changes Google made with its first click free program on Google News where you could get access to hard paywalled news sites like The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times. For the longest time I would use this loophole to avoid paywalls. When they closed this loophole I relented and began signing up to paywalls when I had no other choice if I wanted to read the content.
I think that because of the above shareability problems that hard paywalled news sites are in a race to a bubble of their own making. Unless their subscribed readers spread word of mouth about their sites how are new and up and coming news consumers going to discover your content if they never had access to it for free in the first place like many news consumers of the 2000s. It will be entirely due to reputation around the web. Many forum moderators on social news website Reddit don’t allow users to post paywalled stories, lest it upset Redditors.
In conclusion I don’t see news organizations having any choice but to continue with the paywall strategy, and I will admit some are having success. The NYTimes and The Washington Post both saw pretty major bumps in subscribers after Donald Trump was elected. I was one of them. Purely ad supported news sites have to turn to other revenue streams like podcasts, events and sponsored content to survive. The paywalled sites have insulation against this because they have a continuing revenue stream. And for newspapers whose physical products may soon wind up being delivered or printed at all it will become all the more important to have digital subscription monies coming in. Without massive awareness of their product will these siloed off news subscribers be enough to keep these traditionally massive companies afloat? Or could we see even more job losses and newspaper closures?
Anthony Eales is a media, news & tech junkie from Australia.
