Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
The Telegraph is one of several newspapers in the state and many more nationwide gearing up to launch a "metered" payment system for online content. Some features, like breaking news updates, will remain free and unrestricted. But for most content, visitors to the site will be limited to a certain number of page views per month before they're asked to register and a higher threshold before they're asked to pay.
Besides The Telegraph, New Hampshire papers with plans to roll out metered payment systems this year include the Concord Monitor, the Portsmouth Herald (Seacoast Online), and The Conway Daily Sun.
(boldface mine.)
Look, I don't have the bills to pay at a newspaper company, so I can't fault them for trying to figure out a way to stay afloat.
The idea is fundamentally flawed. It might bring in some needed web revenue, though if I had to guess I'd say it really won't bring in enough.
But what it will do is dramatically limit the power and influence of those papers over time.
The basic assumption seems to be: well, if we take away content, they'll have no choice but to pay us to get it back!
Um, no. What will happen is that people will look elsewhere. And there will always be an elsewhere, even a New Hampshire-centric elsewhere, on the ever expanding intertubes.
(Remember how quickly the Union Leader walked back the DiStaso paywall fiasco?)
Reading the above article about the pay "curtain" was just so painful. You can feel the justifications behind every paragraph, justifications that seem to be intended to convince the papers themselves of the rightness of their decision rather than their readers. This particularly stood out, given the proven intelligence of the paper and its editor:
"The public is increasingly accepting of that notion, whereas five or six years ago that wasn't the case," Jim Rousmaniere, the Sentinel's editor and president, said. "We got plenty of heat from industry experts telling us we were idiots and it was the wrong way to go."
Since then, Rousmaniere said, consumers are beginning to realize that if you're looking for quality information on the Internet, as opposed to the millions of opinions that come up in a Web search, it might come at a cost.
Currently, the paper has about 11,000 print subscribers with full access to the Web site and about 200 online-only subscribers.
And what's going to happen when newsprint goes the way of the dinosaur? 200 online-only subscribers is the right way to go? Tiny little Blue Hampshire could probably pull off subscription numbers like that if we wanted to. And of course, on the model to begin with: there's a reason we hardly ever link to the Sentinel here. It's not around much to link to. Out of sight, out of mind.
But to the larger point. The idea that news sites are the ones providing "quality" reporting, worth parting with my money, while the rest of the web is a mash of opinion, not worth parting with my money, is, to be charitable, a grossly errant view of the digital revolution we are in the midst of.
But Clay Shirky said it better last Thursday:
About 15 years ago, the supply part of media's supply-and-demand curve went parabolic, with a predictably inverse effect on price. Since then, a battalion of media elites have lined up to declare that exactly the opposite thing will start happening any day now.
To pick a couple of examples more or less at random, last year Barry Diller of IAC said, of content available on the web, "It is not free, and is not going to be," Steve Brill of Journalism Online said that users "just need to get back into the habit of doing so [paying for content] online", and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp said "Web users will have to pay for what they watch and use."
Diller, Brill, and Murdoch seem be stating a simple fact-we will have to pay them-but this fact is not in fact a fact. Instead, it is a choice, one its proponents often decline to spell out in full, because, spelled out in full, it would read something like this:
"Web users will have to pay for what they watch and use, or else we will have to stop making content in the costly and complex way we have grown accustomed to making it. And we don't know how to do that."