Dow
     -89.23
12801.23
-0.69%
|
     -9.31
1342.64
-0.69%
|
     -108.90
14000.51
-0.77%
|
     -23.35
2903.88
-0.80%
|
     -1.03
53.27
-1.90%
|
     +1.09
116.27
+0.95%
|
     +0.01
2.01
+0.42%
March 15, 2010 9:05 AM

Survey: People Won't Pay for News Online

(AP)  Getting people to pay for news online at this point would be "like trying to force butterflies back into their cocoons," a new consumer survey suggests.

That was one of several bleak headlines in the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual assessment of the state of the news industry, released Sunday.

The project's report contained an extensive look at habits of the estimated six in 10 Americans who say they get at least some news online during a typical day. On average, each person spends three minutes and four seconds per visit to a news site.

About 35 percent of online news consumers said they have a favorite site that they check each day. The others are essentially free agents, the project said. Even among those who have their favorites, only 19 percent said they would be willing to pay for news online — including those who already do.

There's little brand loyalty: 82 percent of people with preferred news sites said they'd look elsewhere if their favorites start demanding payment.

"If we move to some pay system, that shift is going to have to surmount significant consumer resistance," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the project, part of the Pew Research Center.

Last year, online advertising saw its first decline since 2002, according to the research firm eMarketer. Four of five Americans surveyed told the project that they never or hardly ever click on ads.

Despite a lot of choices, traffic on news sites tends to be concentrated on the biggest — Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, AOL and The New York Times.

"There was this view that we're retreating into our own world of niche sites and that's not true," Rosenstiel said.

That offers a glimmer of hope for establishing a pay system if operators of the biggest sites could somehow agree on how to do it, he said. The survey found that if forced to make a choice, consumers prefer some kind of subscription service to a pay-as-you-go plan.

The Wall Street Journal requires readers to pay for content and The New York Times recently announced plans to charge for full access to its Web site. Starting next year under a metered system, Times readers will be allowed to click on a certain number of stories for free each month, with fees kicking in for readers who exceed that level.

In addition to attempts to reach back and charge readers for content they have become accustomed to getting for free, news executives hope that advances in technology and changes in consumer habits will provide future revenue opportunities.

The Associated Press last month announced a new business unit, AP Gateway, designed to develop and promote products that will help the cooperative, newspapers and broadcasters create revenue-producing products. The AP, for instance, will charge for an application it is developing for use on the iPad, Apple's tablet computer.

While consumers may seem reluctant to pay for news, they're more likely to pay for the functionality of news products on various devices, including smart phones, said Jane Seagrave, senior vice president and chief revenue officer at The Associated Press.

"I'm more hopeful now than I ever have been," Seagrave said. "There seems to be a broad understanding that there is a value to professional journalism that is at risk right now."

Pew's survey also noted how news habits are changing rapidly. Blogging is declining in frequency, one quarter of Americans now say they get some news on their mobile phones and people are looking for news more frequently on social Web sites, the survey found.

For the online survey, the project interviewed 2,259 people from Dec. 28, 2009, to Jan. 19, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus five percentage points.

Beyond the online activity, the study found that cable news, led by Fox News Channel, seemed to be the only sector of the news industry thriving.

Newspaper advertising revenue fell 26 percent in 2009 compared to the year before, the study said. Local TV and radio ad revenue were both off 22 percent. Network television ad revenue was down 8 percent.

Network news division resources are down more than half since the late 1980s, and that doesn't count ABC News' recent announcement that it could lose as much as a quarter of its staff due to cutbacks.

Newspaper spending on reporting and editing has fallen roughly 30 percent over the past decade, probably more at many big-city dailies, Rosenstiel said.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by rubybaya May 4, 2010 4:55 AM EDT
Great information thanks for sharing this.

I think that paid surveys are the best way for people to start making money online.I can tell that from my own experience.Last year I started that online business, now I make more than $1000, and I work only several days per week.The good things about surveys is that you can start working immediately.Absolutely no skills needed.Typically there are two types of survey sites - paid and free.I would recommend you to join free survey site at start, because there is no need to pay for membership.Here is one site that is 100% legitimate and 100% free for registration:

http://www.EliteSurveys.info
Reply to this comment
by democratic_1 March 15, 2010 2:11 PM EDT
Pay for news on the internet? Oh, please! It's not news according to me, it's infotainment. Garbage in garbage out.
Reply to this comment
by marine1957 March 15, 2010 12:42 PM EDT
I could never, ever justify paying for news written by people that can't even compose a sentence or paragraph properly. The most common errors by all news people are "out of place" phrases.
If they can't compose their English grammar accurately, how can I be expected to believe that they can report the news accuartely?
Reply to this comment
by rf35 March 15, 2010 12:18 PM EDT
I'll be d*mned if I start paying for the drivel called "news" these days. If this site started charging, I'd just go back to getting news from the TV and radio...like I did in the days before I had a computer.
Reply to this comment
by bciss March 15, 2010 11:22 AM EDT
Maybe people have begun to realize the "news" is in general infotainment, not worth paying for as it is everywhere. Seems no matter the MSM source it just basically parrots each other or just says the exact opposite of their "competition".

Why pay for what is generally getting regurgitated on all forms of media,, you will hear it eventually? It is laughable and tiresome. The most interesting thing about news stories on a whole these days is the comment's of the general public and their growing awareness. Something is askew.

Of course it is also obvious as to why it is so. You can not have literally all major media and the vast, vast majority of supposedly local outlets all owned by a tiny handful of mega companies. Protecting and projecting their and their friends interests. By it's very nature it is too controlling and narrow for real news and truth to stand much of a chance. In the face of it's bright shiny packaging and carefully worded sound bites. In fact I would be far more likely to pay a site that was keeping itself free of corporate influence,etc. As the propaganda and one sided info of "MSM" get's old, having to stay beholden to over lord big money skews the value. To say the least.
Reply to this comment
by enough-already March 15, 2010 11:16 AM EDT
Radios and TVs with vacuum tubes, dial phones, cars with carburetors and distributor caps, these things have been improved and replaced with better devices. The newspaper belongs in the same scrap heap- they need paper and ink to make it, then gas-powered vehicles to deliver it to locations where it can be purchased, or more vehicles to deliver it to your home, all so it can be thrown away or recycled. What's the point? Almost every newspaper has the same information on their website. Same with magazines.
Reply to this comment
by rf35 March 15, 2010 12:16 PM EDT
Hey! I NEED my newspaper. What am I supposed to use to start a fire or wrap fish in? I even hold onto the Sunday comics to use a Christmas wrapping paper.
by rocketjl March 15, 2010 10:49 AM EDT
There seems to be an assumption that many of the news media sites are better than they really are. Some are so far out there it is amazing they are still on. Others are so heavily political it is hard to avoid becoming upset. Go ahead and let them all begin charging. Then, we will see what news programs are really important to people and which ones have never been. Good ahead. Do you fell lucky, whimpy???????
Reply to this comment
by tsigili March 15, 2010 9:23 AM EDT
People are already paying for it......in tons of unwanted advertising......just like on TV!

The ads are so cumbersome, that the browsers freeze, waiting for the ad sites to load the ads.

They seriously want the public to pay for that???? Go figure.
Reply to this comment
by dmwj2 March 15, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
I agree... sometimes I feel like I am back on a 14.4 dial-up modem, waiting for pages to load... and it is the graphically intense ads!
by rf35 March 15, 2010 12:14 PM EDT
One would expect that a site shifting to some form of pay system would eleminate all or most of the ads (since they're not generating much revenue to begin with). But I doubt that would be the case.
by dragon8me March 15, 2010 8:43 AM EDT
I know I wouldn't pay for the garbage that's passed off as news. I can no longer recieve and tv station since they went digital, even though I have a converter. I live too far away. I will never pay for tv either, There's not enough on cable to make it worth watching, I would rather buy dvd's and watch what I want. As far as news, I'll get it online but not for a fee.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb2011 March 15, 2010 8:41 AM EDT
We already pay to be online, so your assertion is not accurate.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the ISPs won't share revenue with news organizations.

But judging from the "Levitra" ads in the banner, the Virgin mobile ad, and the other flash vids playing on my page, I think you will do alright.
Reply to this comment
See all 14 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook