Who will pay for news?

All fantastic points that don't warrant much disagreement. You're absolutely right in identifying the buying trends, except someone buying a song or album they enjoy isn't the same as a buyer subscribing to news. Tiered packages and differing price points are where it's at if paywalls are to work. The concept needs to extend beyond telling the readership, "Pay $X to read the rest of these words."

If, like many have said, the idea is that news is free, then the websites and apps have to improve functionality to match the new business model. We might not be so inclined to access a batch of articles for $.99, but we might be interested in buying a subscription if it opens up the paper's archives. (I'd probably have a lot more fun reading a historical paper from the 30s than reading something from today.)

Most people don't read religiously (and by most, I'm thinking of myself and how common I am). It'd be fantastic if we could open an app today, read a captivating story, and then follow a prompt to the previous articles that developed it. In short, it'd need to be deeper and more precise than the "Related Articles" block that relies on tags and keywords.

 

Hahaha, not sure. Just threw that number out. Should it be higher or lower?

 

I'd charge $1 a month. Full access to the website, with an archive going back at least a year.

 

I never thought Times Select. Opinion is the one thing that you can get plenty of for free.

Sure, some opinion columnists have more stature than others, but you might only have one or two favorites in the Times. They were still giving away 90% of the paper for free. I can see why people didn't step up and pay to read Maureen Dowd.

It's the Times original reporting and storytelling that's unrivaled and worth paying for.

They're the best at what they do, and it's all in one place.

 

Worked for who?

Does Apple make a s-load off iTunes? Yes.

But do the content providers-- the artists themselves? No. The artists make almost nothing off iTunes.

 

When we first went pay, a guy said to me "Y'all are just trying to make money."
I said, "Yes, don't you expect to get paid when you got to work?"

 

Depends on the artist and the artist's deal. On a 99-cent download, after Apple takes its cut, there's roughly 70 cents in play for the artist/label. An artist who self-releases can pocket all of that, less whatever it takes to amortize the cost of production.

But, yeah, most people paid on the royalty model get paid last and least.

 

I was under the impression that bands didn't really make much on the album process anyway, and that the real money was in touring.

 

How many people still pirate music? I used Napster and Morpheus, but never got into Limewire. I put a few bucks into one of those Russian sites, but once iTunes came around, I've used that.

As for the ethics of getting around paywalls, I don't see it unethical to get around them if the content providers specifically keep it partially open.

 

I don't know the answer, but I've always heard the only reason to tour was to promote/drive sales of of new album.
I am pretty sure the real money is in writing royalties, even more than the performer if it isn't the same person.

 

Sgreenwell is correct -- for the most part, the moneymaker is the tour, not the album. Unless an act can command a huge advance, a band signed to a label won't make squat from the album.

I saw an interview with Prince years ago, when he didn't have a label and was selling CDs strictly through his own website (before iTunes took off). He was asked whether it was tough for him financially. He said for every dollar someone spent on his album on a label, he got 10 cents. Through his website he got 90 cents.

 

from a 99-cent itunes download, i get 70-something cents. of course, then i have to pay about 9 cents to the songwriter/publisher and i've already paid for the studio time, digital mastering, etc.

but for an artist on a major label, they make their money from tours and from other merchandise. unless the artist is also the songwriter/publisher.