"Read all about it" at a cost

Recently I wrote a piece for the Gravity Thinking web blog about the Free business model that the Internet has created over the years. The article focused on free music and TV spurred by the increase of popularity by such sites as Spotify and Zattoo.

But the other day whilst I was on a flight to Naples, I came across a news story that was developing in the last few weeks about how Rupert Murdoch is planning to charge his newspaper articles over the internet; and he doesn’t intend on changing his mind either, by simply looking at the financial reports you can, in some ways understand why.

The FT which has been charging for subscriptions since the inception of its internet reader base is looking to new ways to charge on an article basis - its thought - charge it like the iTunes store. A quick and easy account set up with payment facilities and effectively you add articles to your basket, purchase and off you go and read.

But what does this mean for the journalism as a whole?

The Observer (the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper) is going completely digital by the end of this year with a paid subscription feature, and weekly periodics such as Time Magazine and The Economist have had a digital paid business model for a few years now.

Rupert Murdoch like every other media tycoon believe in one core principle “If you want quality, you need to pay for it”. You can see why. Paper sales have been reduced by nearly 70% in the last year alone, leaving newspapers scrambling to get more advertising on the centre and back pages like never before. Journalists are being laid off and the best editors are going to where the money lies.

For news sites such as the BBC and CNN however this can only mean good news. They are pure play digital in every sense of the word. TV, Radio and now the Internet, leading authorities in journalism they have other means to gather finance, and keep the reporting fresh and upto date.

Twitter is becoming ever more a voice of the people. People led journalism is also risky however. How reliable are the sources? What about hackers? We have only recently seen an election in Iran being shaped by People led journalism. But just imagine however if all the information was wrong, or if someone from the Iranian government was counter orchestrating a rebellion through the same means.

And let’s not forget blogs. With over 200 million, 1 in 3 reading one every day, and sites such as The Huffington Post using “other site generated content” they are becoming a more sustainable voice in the news world. Granted, some pieces require there own commentary and validation, but if you aren’t paying for an opinion or other site feed, then this can only help shape your selection right?

And that’s where I think the real difference will be made. As consumers we have grown custom to having an “ever lasting” news cycle. How a news website looked in the morning will look completely different by mid-morning. The digital journalism model means that reporters are using blogs and twitter feeds to keep you upto date all the time - but what is going to be the likelihood of this happening with journalists who are used to producing one to two pieces a day?

How will the model develop? I don’t know, but I do have some personal ideas. What I do know however is this. People are fickle. If they can get the same information for free somewhere else, then they will. What’s going to make people think about their choice in news coverage is going to be; “what’s the added benefit to me?”