Public Eye
October 25, 2005 12:34 PM

Free Access Or NewsSelect?

Web surfers are increasingly concerned that their access to news content is being limited. The advent of TimesSelect invoked the ire of many Web users when what was once free became $49.95 a year. That got us wondering: do news networks’ Web sites offer enough access to the video content that is on television? In particular, we wondered why none of the networks carry any free video of broadcasts online in their entirety.

At CBS News, “the reason is that we have agreements with affiliates that entitle them to exclusivity of the product -- including entertainment, news and sports -- and that agreement stipulates specifically under what circumstances we can ‘repurpose’ previously broadcast material on other platforms” such as the web, said Preston Farr, senior vice president of affiliate relations at CBS. The exceptions within those agreements stipulate that the network can use pieces of news broadcasts, but not entire programs.

Farr says that the current agreement has been in effect since 1998 and is currently being renegotiated. “It will likely include some revision to exclusivity agreements,” he said.

Betsy Morgan, senior vice president and general manager of CBSNews.com, says she would likely not play the broadcasts in their entirety even if the affiliate arrangements allowed for it. “I don’t think that’s the way the online audience wants to see that content. They want to pick and choose. All of our research data shows that the attention span for this medium is very short form. The web user is often time-constrained and looking for bits and bytes rather than a sit-back experience,” she said.

Jonathan Dube, editorial director for the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s Web site and editor of Cyberjournalist.net, a site that focuses on the intersection of web technology and journalism, agrees with Morgan. “Online users are more likely to watch shorter video segments than full shows,” says Dube. “Plus, breaking up the video from a show into individual stories enables the sites to integrate the video with related articles on the Web site, and makes it possible for sites to offer users ‘build their own newscast’ options. Presenting the video in that way enables news sites to better take advantage of the strengths of the Internet.”

All the networks’ Web sites include free video in the form of selected segments from various broadcasts, and some offer more than others. In addition to Web-exclusive video content from correspondents and a wide selection of segments from "The Early Show" and the "Evening News," CBSNews.com now features online editions of “The Early Show” and the “Evening News,” but the content of both programs is limited to three segments from each broadcast that last about 10 minutes. Only brief clips from segments broadcast on “60 Minutes” are available online, again because affiliate agreements stipulate such an arrangement. FoxNews.com and MSNBC.com feature free video segments from various broadcasts. ABCNews.com, which has increased the amount of free video content on the site recently, features some free segments from its broadcasts, but also maintains an on-demand subscription feature, in which viewers can choose to watch ABC News programs for $4.95 per month.

Still, while publications such as The New York Times may be navigating toward subscription-based content, television news web sites are shifting in the opposite direction, says Dube, citing CNN’s recent decision to drop its charge for video content on its Web site. “In the past year, CNN.com, one of the biggest sites that required a subscription for people to view video, moved away from that model, opening it up to all CNN.com users for free. Most major news sites now offer their video for free, and I expect them to continue to do so. In the past year demand for advertising on online video has soared, making online video very profitable. As a result, it's now possible for most major sites to offer video for free, cover their bandwidth costs and still make a profit.”
Tags:
timesselect ,
free video
Topics:
Media Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
  • CBSNews.com on Digg
Add a Comment
by ejpasseos October 26, 2005 2:59 PM EDT
I\'ve been a long time WSJ reader that has refused to pony up for the online edition. It seems a little like stubborness or to prove a \"we can do it\" point that they refused to do so. With everyone from Google to Comcast falling over a chance to get AOL\'s \"eyeballs\" it seems that the advertising model is functional. I won\'t pay for the Times (not my political style) and wouldn\'t for most others. On the other hand, I would suggest that sites trove more their viewers habits/demographics. I have no objection to providing detailed information when registering and would definitely comply with tracking, etc.
Reply to this comment
by tomgrey2 October 26, 2005 9:38 AM EDT
...so CBS should offer MORE \"free stuff\", stuff already produced, to get more ad revenue. Not just the full CBS news in video, broken up and identified with tags, but even in-depth notes of reporters, and stuff not shown -- to allow the few who want to \"roll their own news\" to rely on CBS (sticky web site) for their source. Let CBS news reports be \"duplicated with a different bias\", by bloggers and all amateurs.
Reply to this comment
by tomgrey2 October 26, 2005 9:35 AM EDT
Web sites sell eyeballs to advertizers, or clicks. Those are the two main biz models. \"Free stuff\", like network TV is, is to get the eyeballs; the internet allows the clicks (even more valuable?).
Reply to this comment
by wintermute1-2009 October 25, 2005 8:23 PM EDT
\"ABCNews.com ... has increased the amount of free video content on the site recently....\" What a coincidence. I chewed ABC\'s webmaster out in email a few weeks ago about unfree video being a crappy business model. Whereas, I used to try to memorize and recite the WalMart ads preceding CBS\'s, to kill time, but they changed too often. There shouldn\'t be a flap about unbundling the segments of the broadcast news programs. That\'s what websters want anyway. And if Google can make so much on web ad revenue alone, surely a popular news site can make a profit with the same model.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 October 25, 2005 7:28 PM EDT
The WSJ doesn\'t serve nearly the audience or variety and depth of coverage of the New York Times, so that alone distances it from the MSM cluster of publications. The more specialized and clientele-specific a publication becomes, the more likely it is to go subscription, if only for cash flow concerns. Conversely, the broader a publication\'s appeal, the wider the readership and consequent advertiser support, and the less likely it is to impose a toll. That the New York Times chose a toll approach probably is a mistake (surely its first), since those who use a site for news will find another site to suit all their news needs, rather than visit the New York Times on a more limited basis. That describes what happened with my own news gathering web patterns-- I now have limited my traffic to the New York Times site, and have shifted to one or two other full-news places, besides CBSnews.com. Eventually, one hopes, the New York Times will sense something is wrong with its site traffic figures, and after another titanic internal battle, decide to go with its readership-- not against it.
Reply to this comment
by marbarca October 25, 2005 5:22 PM EDT
I think it\'s a great idea that media companies like CNN are allowing their online video content to be viewed for free. Hopefully CBS will see how that idea works in their favor and follow suit. What I find interesting is that no one has been batting around the idea of offering free downloadable news content to devices such as the new iPod video. Jonathan Dube\'s comment about the likelihood of internet users watching just tiny segments of online media makes sense for home and office users because they may find it uncomfortable to sit through an entire broadcast on their office chair, or they may have other things to do while on the computer. On the other hand, the wants of of mobile users may extend in the opposite direction. Speaking from my own experience, my commute to and from college every day lasts about an hour, which leaves me little to do. I can definitely see myself watching an entire episode of 60 minutes, for example, while on that commute. I do something similar already by listening to books on tape and podcasts on my mp3 player.
Reply to this comment
by janefinch October 25, 2005 5:16 PM EDT
I\'m not sure why people should expect that all of the NYT, or indeed any traditional news source, be free. The WSJ and other prominent publications have subscriber only content, and yet there is no outcry about that. If people want free, perhaps they should take a page from the good old days of the 90s and go to their public libraries to read the dead tree versions.
Reply to this comment

Exclusive Webshow

Does dad need a nursing home? Dr. LaPook talks with a geriatrician about navigating a difficult decision.
Watch Now

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye

  • MOST POPULAR