Will you pay for mobile news?
This is a subject dear to my heart.
Not only did I spend “my formative years” working in various radio/television newsrooms producing live broadcasts during nearly every hour of the day and night. I also was an early pioneer of Internet news.
The companies I worked for all sold advertisements based on our readership/viewership. That’s how we made enough money to keep the organization alive and well.
But that economic model doesn’t work so well when people stop watching TV news. Or reading newspapers. All U.S. newsrooms are being affected by this.
Which brings us to today’s news that CNN has introduced a new mobile application for iPhones/iPods.
CNN is not the first news organization to attempt to attract younger customers. Thompson-Reuters, Associated Press, Financial Times, NPR and others already have smartphone applications. So far, all of these little programs have been free.
Not so for CNN.com’s new app. Time-Warner is asking $1.99 for the download.
The Wall Street Journal has a mobile app as well. They’ve been charging for some online content for years. Now, WSJ’s owner, Rupert Murdoch is rumored to be thinking about charging a buck or two per week (or $50-$100 a year) to access WSJ’s mobile content.
CNN is the first “mainstream news” organization to try to charge for content. To their credit, CNN’s new software is unique in that in addition to written news stories it also offers live, streaming video newscasts as well as the ability to watch video-on-demand reportage.
You can even receive push notification when there’s “breaking news” video available to watch.
I realize that a one-time charge of $2 is not a great hardship for most iPhone owners – but the question remains whether people will pay for – and then watch – news on their cell phones if they don’t watch on television.
I have recently tested a number of modern Nokia phones which have a free application for France 24’s mobile newscasts pre-installed on the handsets. France 24 “broadcasts” in 3 languages (French, English, and Arabic). Their English-language newscasts are quite entertaining and informative.
But, after two or three minutes I find it difficult to continue watching news on a cell phone. The video quality is OK – it’s just that the screen is too small for long-term video enjoyment.
And, it’s not just news. Trying to watch NFL football – whether it’s a live game or just video highlights – on a 3 or 4-inch screen gets tired very quickly.
I’m not sure the novelty of being able to watch news or sports on a cell phone will attract younger users – especially on a long-term basis.
And, although I prefer CNN’s idea of a $2, one-time charge over WSJ’s recurring subscription plan, I don’t believe news junkies should have to pay at all for their mobile news.
News organizations, large and small, will have to concentrate on providing content more relevant to the younger audience they desperately need to reach – and sell ads – not charge for material that the majority of people don’t seem to be interested in.
new model for ads may be letting the viewer select the ads he/she wants to see…
if the ads are good enough, people would actually pay for them!
I would pay for real news. Or a cross between Media Matters, Jon Stewart and the Gong Show. There’s a lot of un or under employed talent out there. But it can’t just be a pea sized version of the same
bullshit you get on basic cable. I would particularly like it if I were out of the country or traveling a lot. But pay for ads—they’d have to really be good.