“ Newspapers can’t entice us into small payment systems, because we care too much about our conversation with one another, and they can’t force us into such systems, because Off the Bus and Pro Publica and Gawker and Global Voices and Ohmynews and Spot.us and Smoking Gun all understand that not only is a news cartel unworkable, but that if one existed, their competitive advantage would be in attacking it rather than defending it. ”
from Clay Shirky’s “Why Small Payments Won’t Save Publishers.” The quote is long, yes, but it gets at the main point I’ve been trying to make about plans like Steve Brill’s: if I am charged for one news outlet’s content and not charged for its competitor’s, I’m heading on over to its competitor, even if it’s a—gasp!—blog.
Bonus hilarity: In that memo, Brill suggests that “For the first year, print subscribers would get the online version for free (which might enable an increase in the print price). After the first year they might pay 50% of the online price. (Many print readers also read the online version for convenience or to pass around a story to someone else.)”
Does anyone out there think that’s a good idea at all? (“Let’s charge our most loyal readers more for the print edition so they have the privledge of using our once-free website for a year. After they’re hooked on our dying print edition, let’s make ‘em pay for online content. But don’t worry, they’re going to get a classy 50% discount—you know, to show ‘em how much we care.) Really brings a whole new meaning to “conveinence charge,” a term coined by Ticketmaster and one that makes my Top 10 Worst Things to Ever Come Across.
