Simon Dumenco wrote at AdAge this week about the billionaire benefactors of old media: the Sulzbergers, Rupert Murdoch, Bruce Wasserstein, Sam Zell, John R. MacArthur, and more. He laments their aging, and in a subhead asks “where’s the next generation of Richie Riches willing to take losses on worthy media properties?”
It’s easy to take a melancholy view that the good old days of media are behind us. But “who wants to take a loss?” is the wrong question. Let’s get real: The future of media had better not be about finding philanthropists to fund it. It needs to be about creating successful businesses. Those successful businesses will create wealth, not consume it, when they deliver content and experiences that are worth paying for by advertisers and consumers alike.
So who are these emerging emperors of the digital media age so far?
Each one of these figures has created a new model that matches the digital age. And, in fact, every one of them has done it by breaking with traditional publishing to interleave content and consumption so that they are inseparable.
That interactivity of content and consumption is a defining difference between the new world of media and the falling empires of legacy publishing. Those who master the synergy between their audience and their content can transform their consumers into far more than just a target for advertising: their audience participates in building the empire itself.
(Missing anyone? Post a comment with your thoughts.)
While Rupert Murdoch is pumping up paywalls, many in the industry are resounding in their criticism: “But consumers won’t pay for content.”
It’s clear that they are right, sort of: by and large, consumers won’t pay for content for the sites they visit as long as there is a good-enough free alternative.
But that isn’t what this is about. In all likelihood, the brainy folks at News Corp agree too; and their point is not to fight to convince the consumer with their bold statements in the press, but to change the industry.
In fact, from all the clamor they are making, it’s been clear that the goal of their campaign isn’t even all that much about making their own strategic shift to paywalls. Instead, it looks like News Corp’s goal is to get the entire industry to do so. And they’re right to do so: let’s face it, if everyone went pay, consumers who value content significantly wouldn’t have a choice but to change their behavior.
So how would News Corp go about making paywalls pay well? If I were them, I would plan something like this:
The goal is to get enough of the top players in the industry on board to tilt the balance to where consumers need to pay up for paywalls.
For most of the readers of this post, if you couldn’t get the bulk of the sources you read for free, would you even think twice before subscribing (as long as the rates were reasonable)? If the New York Times, CNN, TechCrunch, PaidContent, and my local paper were all behind paywalls, there is no question that I would subscribe to one (or more likely a bundle with more than one) of them.
With the right consumer offering with good value for money, and the elimination of high-quality free alternatives, it doesn’t even take much creativity to find proof points: that’s exactly the model that built the daily newspaper industry to its $50B ad expenditure peak in 2006 (NAA).
If Rupert and his team at News Corp can bang the drum loudly enough to get enough others on board, he has the chance to make subscription the new free.