The San Francisco Chronicle has sort of started charging for content by pulling pieces from its web and only making them available to subscribers.It was confusing and really something of a storm in a tea-cup, but here is what happened: a column by San Francisco Chronicle editor at large, Phil Bronstein, appeared briefly on the paper's SFGate website – then it was pulled. It was a political piece and the paper then had a flurry of "calls and emails" came from the likes of the Bay Guardian, the SF Appeal, Gawker, sfist and KQED radio among others (nice to know you’re being read). They all wanted to know if the piece had been pulled because of censorship because it was critical of a local politician.This was not the case. Here's what happened. The column is part of an experiment in trying to save premium content for the paper. It was never intended to go online. The paper hinted it would do this back in May (when it also said it hadn't discussed micropayments all that much because it believed "that's a mass market opportunity for us").I know that's a shock in itself. What you mean you are not putting absolutely everything online? You want people to read it in print. Whatever next.
Here's how San Francisco Chronicle editor Ward Bushee put it:"Phil's column was created from the start to be a print-only column in the Monday Chronicle. When we first started talking about the column, Phil and I agreed to try this as a low-stakes experiment. The experiment is not indicative of any larger plan by the Chronicle, SFGate or Hearst. "It is not the start of a premium content initiative or a pay wall. But it was designed to test how different content models can serve different audiences. Each week Phil reaches a significant online audience with his blog, which is not available in print. By introducing a column by Phil that is different in its content and mission from his blog, we can see if it adds value to the printed paper by giving readers unique content that they could not get free online. As with any experiment, it will be evaluated at some point to see if we stick with it or change it."Unfortunately, the brief appearance of the column on SFGate this week made some people think we were pulling it off because of the content. That was not the case. The column was posted for a short time on SFGate through a misunderstanding and then pulled down when it was discovered."
On his blog (which is online) Bronstein himself said that "it was also part of the growing pains of feeling our way on how to provide content and make money to support it at the same time. No one knows if the whole "embargo" thing, as they call it in harried journalism discussions these days, will help us, hurt us or have no effect. But experimentation is essential if we're going to find our future in this profession".I'm not sure if a column is the most compelling thing to make me buy a paper, but Bronstein is right you have to experiment so fair play to the Chronicle for doing the thinking and giving it a shot.These next few months and beyond are all about working out how to make content pay as various news organisations make decisions about paid content.
Funnily enough there was talk earlier this year that the San Francisco Chronicle was going to start introducing pay-per-view sections on its website (along with job cuts) as part of an effort to reduce the paper's operating loss threatening the San Francisco Chronicle. So far this has come to nothing, but it is only a matter of time.
Follow me on Twitter
Pingback from Posts about Gawker as of July 22, 2009 » The Daily Parr
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
