LA Times abandons paid content model

By Robert Niles. Posted: 2005-05-10

The Los Angeles Times debuted its redesigned latimes.com this morning. The newspaper website also reopened free access to its CalendarLive entertainment site.

The Times had restricted access to CalendarLive to seven-day subscribers of the paper, as well as a handful of online-only subscribers. The move was designed to provide seven-day subscribers an additional premium, in an attempt to reduce "churn." [Full disclosure: I was on the staff of CalendarLive when Times management decided to restrict access.]

However, Times circulation continues to fall (as it does at most U.S. newspapers) and having CalendarLive behind a subscription wall sharply reduced the site's traffic.

Steve Yelvington suggested this morning at Poynter.org that paid content is dead. It certainly is for general consumer arts and entertainment coverage. Newspaper chains blew a golden opportunity a decade ago when they failed to organize topic-driven national niche sites, using the "name brand" appeal of their critics. Instead, they left the market open for reader-driven niche entertainment sites, which now collectively draw millions of readers that once looked to their local newspaper for arts and entertainment coverage. Newspapers which throw that content behind a subscription wall only accelerate that process.

[Corrected from the original to rephrase the summary of Yelvington's piece. Thanks to Jon Garfunkel for the catch.]

Comments:

From Jon Garfunkel on May 11, 2005 at 7:55 PM

I still feel that Yelvington's suggestion was highly qualified: the headline clearly says: "... or is it?"

Case in point: Cyberjournalist cites E&P's report today that the Christian Science Monitor might start charging for content.

I am mildly interested why free content is seen as a given. I do buy into Yelvington's suggestions, that more creative subscription methods will be devised.

From Robert Niles on May 12, 2005 at 10:27 AM

I don't think that all paid content is dead. There's an industry just up the road from us in the San Fernando Valley that has done quite well with paid content online, to start. (Additional clue: rhymes with "shorn.")

But repurposed newspaper content online is a tough sell. There's just not enough truly original, unique content in today's newspapers, thanks to decades of newsroom cutbacks and management fondness for inexperienced G.A. reporters over highly trained specialists. A few publications that have not skimped on the quality of their content have succeeded with paid content online (such as Consumer Reports and Cooks Illustrated.) But I think the newspaper industry (and I do not mean to single out the L.A. Times) has a wildly inflated view of the value of its editorial content to the public.

From Jon Garfunkel on May 12, 2005 at 7:13 PM

Well, I wouldn't say there's any more originality in the rhymes-with-shorn industry. If I could guage what I've seen in the previews... it's largely derivative. This may in fact have been the first "citizen's media" revolution.

Back to the newspaper beat. As someone with little firsthand experience in publishing, I'm curious what the breakdown is per types of content-- original, follow-up, derivative, repetitive, fluff. I'd like to see some of the more well-read blogs break this down as well.

Also, with periodicals, there's a lot more original content, which is why they more often charge. I also find it interesting that most of popular focus on media coverage is on newspapers and television-- despite that most of the intellectual class probably absorbs much more via magazines, radio, and webzines.