Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News.
by Peter Kafka
Posted on January 26, 2009 at 3:57 AM PT
U.S. News & World Report, which used to be a weekly news magazine, then a biweekly one and is now a monthly publication, is going to try producing a weekly magazine once again. Online. And it wants you to pay up to read it: A year-long subscription to “U.S. News Weekly” will cost $20.
And if you think that none of that makes sense, don’t worry. Everyone knows you can’t charge people a penny to read something on the Web–especially a weekly publication.
Except that you can: The Economist does a (relatively) healthy business while keeping its weekly magazine behind a subscription paywall. So does the Wall Street Journal’s Barron’s. And as the online ad business continues to evaporate, charging people for access to stuff they want does not seem completely insane.
“We’re creating a tailored product for readers that does what the old newsweeklies did, which was to stop time for people and say ‘What the heck happened over the last week?’ and make sense of it,” editor Brian Kelly tells Portfolio.com’s Jeff Bercovici.
Alas, the new publication seems like a classic tweener: It won’t have enough heft or substance to justify an offline existence. And it won’t be nimble enough to take advantage of the Web’s real-time, did you hear what just happened flexibility, because it’s literally going to be a weekly publication, distributed via downloadable PDF file.
But I’d love to be proved wrong here, because I’ve got a vested interest in viable content production models. And if this one works, I’ll be happy to eat my words. Maybe you’ll pay to watch.
Comments
Here’s me reading this post: “Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm…. subscription… okay…. mm-hmmm… Economist, Barron’s…. well, maybe this’ll work… okay… mm-hmmm… ‘tailored product,’ okay….. mm-hmmm… maybe it’s not such a bad ide– wait a second… ‘DOWNLOADABLE PDF FILE??!?!’ WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!!?”
Posted by Ryan Catbird at January 26th, 2009 at 6:59 amnobody pays for left wing disinformation and puff pieces.
Posted by David Owens at January 26th, 2009 at 8:55 amI really do not see my family paying for a online service that is one week old, specially in this economic state. Why? When as you have said the web is “realtime” and mostly free. I may pay for a very specific site but not a news site.
Posted by Jack Dreyer at January 26th, 2009 at 8:56 amJack Dreyer
You mentioned Barron’s but not the WSJ itself, which I’ve been paying for for several years.
Don’t tell me I’m subsidizing the rest of the world!
Or are you making the distinction for weeklies?
Come to think of it, putting any web based publication on a weekly (or monthly) schedule is ridiculous.
And yes, creating any sort of content only available as a downloadable file (PDF is better than the lesser known formats, but not much) pretty much guarantees I won’t get around to reading it. Most despicable of all are the ones that include the sound of a turning page as you flip through them. Are they idiots, or do they take us for idiots?
Posted by Mac Beach at January 26th, 2009 at 10:36 amYup, I was distinguishing between weeklies, Mac.
Posted by Peter Kafka at January 26th, 2009 at 10:53 amI also don’t think the PDF is a terrible idea in and of itself: For one thing, it means you can read the thing on your iPhone/Berry/Android/Pre when you’re on a plane or in the subway, etc. It just seems like. But I’m really thinking this makes more sense as a print pub that includes a free PDF option as a bonus, rather than a standalone.
U.S. News does more than publish a list of colleges?
Posted by Dan Frommer at January 26th, 2009 at 11:43 amYeah, they do. But the lists (there are several) are their franchises, and they’re right to concentrate on that. People like lists, as you know.
Posted by Peter Kafka at January 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pmI don’t think this is exactly the argument: “Everyone knows you can’t charge people a penny to read something on the Web–especially a weekly publication.”
Everyone knows WSJ has been doing it for a while, as well as you say, The Economist and Barron’s. The argument is that you can’t get people to pay for non-financial news (Mr. Owens’s foot-stomping “nobody pays for left wing disinformation” not withstanding).
Not to mention, even if it were possible, U.S. News isn’t exactly a news heavyweight that people just have to have.
Posted by Jeremy Villano at January 26th, 2009 at 2:17 pm