So, at last newspapers are gonna have a crack at charging us if we want to see stuff online. It’s Johnston Press today but if drum-banging Rupert Murdoch’s wishes are fulfilled it’ll be News Corp tomorrow.
The give-it-away-free model that’s supposed to attract eyeballs that’s supposed to attract advertising that’s supposed to help monetise the business was never more than just theory. Big bucks, lucked-in theory for the some extremely fortunate sellers of their businesses — like now near-worthless Friends Re-united, for example.
But what about those organisations whose paid for or, worse, subscription-based business models, also shove in the ads? Sometimes at the expense of content. And I don’t mean little back street names, like Johnston Press. No…we’re talking the BBC and, the so-hard-up News Corp itself.
Take flagship BBC radio 4’s Today programme. How often do you hear the people’s champions John Humphreys or James Naughtie saying “I’m sorry, Mr Ambassador, but we are running out of time” or “We’re going to have to leave it there, Mr Prime Minister,” only for a cosy little, two-minutes live chat with David Dimbleby to tell us all about his guests on “tonight’s Any Questions” ? Or a pre-recorded ad for a forthcoming radio 4 Woman’s Hour programme (or any other channel, come to that) which I honestly couldn’t care less about? And let’s not forget the telly…it’s exactly the same!
I’ve paid my expensive licence fee because the BBC doesn’t get advertising revenue. Fair enough. I even love the BBC. It’s a true national treasure. But why-oh-why do I have to listen to ads for the BBC when I’m interested in a news story which has to be ’shortened’ for the ads? Madness! Or am I missing something here?
If I haven’t, then perhaps it’s time to revisit not just charging for online content, but not charging for offline content — if it contains advertising. Otherwise this surely must be the height of chutzpah which we’ve all just gone along with with for far too long: advertising in newspapers which we have to pay for.
My Saturday copy of the Times had more pages of advertising than content. OK, I mostly skipped all the ads completely but that still costs me about £1.50. OK, I skip Mathew Parris’s dreadfully sanctimonious stuff immediately every week, but that’s my choice: if I pay for content I don’t like, then I’m an idiot. But, on balance, I like the Times on Saturday, so I’m prepared to put up with turning the page immediately I see the MP headline pic.
So, heads of BBC programming (TV and Radio — there’s far too many to mention) and so Mr Murdoch, if you want to get eyeballs and then lots of advertising, that’s fine. But give the serious offline content away for free. Waive the licence fee or toss me a Times or an FT or a NOTW on a Sat or Sun for free, and I don’t care how much advertising you stick in the thing. But not when I’m paying because then you’re having it both ways.
Perhaps you should take a leaf out the London Evening Standard’s strategy. It seems they’re doing quite well now.
