Now if the media companies could do a bit more of the collusion and copycat thing in this area, we might actually begin to have a workable online media business model.  Newspapers - act like airlines - when one of them announces price hikes they all fall in and announce hikes. Don't undercut WSJ, do what they do and start charging for your content!

In my opinion, online media producers desperately need a ubiquitous micropayment business model.  If WSJ will please make this easy to use, so people do not get frustrated, then we'll be getting somewhere.

I wish Google and Youtube would get in on this act.  If they would drag their "Checkout" piece of code out of the bushes and revamp it a bit so that it is easy to use for micropayments on YouTube, the internet would really start to move along. Producers would have a shot at surviving, streaming costs could begin to be covered, and reality might start to set in for both viewers and creators.

Free is a horrid business model, closely followed by advertising supported models.  We are not a socialist country where group x provides free content for other groups just.....because. The internet is not free.  It never has been, it's just that too many pie-in-the sky, VC-funded goobers have made it that way and we've all gotten used to it.  Time to undo the damage, find a new equilibium and get the next era started.

In my opinion anway :)

Jeff Bach

Thanks for your comment, Jeff. You may be right. If everyone else joined in, micropayments could be worthwhile. But in reality, I doubt all publications will get together and agree to price their articles. In any case, there will always be blogs (uh... you know... not naming any names) and citizen journalists who will post the content of these stories for free, anyway.

From another perspective -- mine, as a journalism school graduate -- micropayments could have a damaging effect on the quality of our media. I mean, think about it: How many people will pay to read a story about conflicts in the Middle East versus a story about Britney Spears's latest antics? After a while, any business-minded editor would realize they were losing money on one and cut it, and double the Britney coverage. Under a subscription system, neither editors nor readers are forced to choose between the two, but if micropayment systems become universal, we could find ourselves becoming less and less informed, as a nation.

Not, of course, that I have any better ideas. :)

And I'm sure that if anyone can pull this off, it's WSJ.

All media producers joining in voluntarily and starting a new era of micropayments is most likely in the "wishful thinking" category, although I would love to be wrong.

My content tends towards niche marketplaces.  Eyeball volumes will never be large enough for me to make an advertising-supported living.  This is the main source of my frustration.  A micropayment or subscription-based model goes further towards solving the revenue problem for me.  I think that small specialty producers and creators are far larger in number than those entities that are large enough to draw the eyeballs that in turn yield the ad revenue.  I'll bet it's probalby like 100 to 1 in favor of the smaller producers.  So for the vast majority, micropayment COULD be a good thing.

As a 20-something journalism grad (going by your picture) in my opinion you are making the mistake of thinking that everyone is like you.  I, for one, LOVE newspapers, with good writing and good articles on a variety of topics.  Especially in the morning with my first cup of coffee.  I do not particularly care about some gomer in Hollywood who can not handle fame or wear underwear on a regular basis.  I tend to think that there are plenty of people out there who also would read quality well-written news content AND be willing to pay for it, especially if the payment was easy to make.  Although it may not be as obvious as it perhaps should be, in my opinion, there is still an incredibly wide spectrum of people out there many of whom still want, like and will pay for good writing.

fingers crossed for micropayments.....

Jeff

No, if everyone was like me we'd be in real trouble, because I wouldn't pay for either of those stories. I'd read 'em elsewhere.

I'll try not to be offended by the assumption that my interests trend toward Britney. :) But I will say I think that its's actually you, as a presumably highly educated man with interests beyond silly celebrity fascination, who are assuming everyone is like you. I think it's naive to think that micropayments in mainstream media wouldn't cause the media to evolve toward more scandalous headlines and content. In their desperation for revenue, they are already headed in that direction.

I think you are probably right that niche publications, where the content is less likely to be found elsewhere, could do well with this, but as far as mainstream media is concerned, I doubt it. I admire and appreciate your optimism though.

Once I read what I wrote it did sound a bit offensive.  I apologize.  Maybe we are both right.  The concept should be that any one style/topic will NEVER fit all of the viewers.  As a last day Baby Boomer, I do think it important to recognize that the  majority of buying power in this country rests firmly in the 40+ category, so that is where I tend to come from.  Presumably media recognizes that and caters towards topics and interests that fit the demographic with the most money/power/influence.  Again I could be wrong.  If Gen Y is bigger and has more money/power/influence then media should adjust accordingly.  The concept is that media recognizes where the most potential lies and gears their products towards that largest group.  Also significant here is that the increasingly fractured nature of our world tends to make problems for anything depending on large groups.

To veer away and bring in another item I've always wondered about - I read somewhere that classified ads have been where newspapers have made most of their money.  If this is true, then maybe the discussion should be not so much around how people have quit reading newspapers based on content, convenience, etc., but instead should recognize that the biggest money maker - classified ads - have pretty much disappeared and newspapers are struggling from that loss rather than a change in media consumption.  If good journalism has always been propped up by a healthy Classified Ads section, and that has gone away, then bad things happen to good journalism.

Keep up your own good writing!  I'm reading it and enjoying it too!

Jeff