Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

May 03 2012

14:55

The newsonomics of Pricing 101

When the price of your digital product is zero, that’s about how much you learn about customer pricing. Now, both the pricing and the learning is on the upswing.

The pay-for-digital content revolution is now fully upon us. Five years ago, only the music business had seen much rationalization, with Apple’s iTunes having bulled ahead with its new 99-cent order. Now, movies, TV shows, newspapers, and magazines are all embracing paid digital models, charging for single copies, pay-per-views, and subscriptions. From Hulu Plus to Netflix to Next Issue Media to Ongo to Press+ to The New York Times to Google Play to Amazon to Apple to Microsoft (buying into Nook this week), the move to paid media content is profound. The imperative to charge is clear, especially as legacy news and magazines see their share of the rapidly growing digital advertising pie (with that industry growing another 20 percent this year) actually decline.

Yes, it’s in part a 99-cent new world order as I wrote about last week (“The newsonomics of 99-cent media”), but there are wider lessons — some curiously counterintuitive — to be learned in the publishing world. Let’s call it the newsonomics of Pricing 101. The lessons here, gleaned from many conversations, are not definitive ones. In fact, they’re just pointers — with rich “how to” lessons found deeper in each.

Let’s not make any mistake this week, as the Audit Bureau of Circulation’s new numbers rolled out and confounded most everyone. Those ABC numbers wowed some with their high percentage growth rates. Let’s keep in mind that those growth numbers come on the heels of some of the worst newspaper quarterly reports issued in awhile. Not only is print advertising in a deepening tailspin, but digital advertising growth is stalled. Take all the ABC numbers you want and tell the world “We have astounding reach” — but if the audience can’t be monetized both with advertising and significant new circulation revenues, the numbers will be meaningless.

When it comes to dollars and sense, pricing matters a lot.

Let’s start with this basic principle: People won’t pay you for content if you don’t ask them to. That’s an inside-the-industry joke, but one with too much reality to sustain much laughter. It took the industry a long time to start testing offers and price points, as The Wall Street Journal and Walter Hussman’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette provided lone wolf examples.

The corollary to that principle? If you don’t start to charge consumers — Warren Buffett on newspaper pricing: “You shouldn’t be giving away a product that you’re trying to sell.” — then you can’t learn how consumers respond to pricing. Once you start pricing, you can start learning, and adjust.

We can pick out at least nine emerging data points:

  • 33-45 percent of consumers who pay for digital subscriptions click to buy before they ever run into a paywall. That’s right — a third to a half of buyers just need to be told they will have to pay for continuing access, and they’re sold. As economists note that price is a signal of value, consumers understand the linkage. Assign what seems to be a fair price, and some readers pay up, especially if they are exposed to a “warning” screen, letting them know they’ve used up of critical number of “free” views. Maybe they want to avoid the bumping inconvenience — or maybe they just acknowledge the jig’s up.
  • If print readers are charged something extra for digital access, then non-print subscribers are more likely to buy a digital-only sub. Why pay for digital access is the other guys (the print subscribers) are getting it thrown in for “free”? Typically, Press+ sees a 20-percent-plus increase in signups on sites that charge print subscribers something extra. That extra may be just a third or so of the price digital-only subscribers pay (say, $2.95 instead of $6.95), but it makes a difference. Consequently, Press+ says 80-90 percent of its sites charge print subscribers for digital access. The company now powers 323 sites and thus has more access to collective data than any other news-selling source.
  • You can reverse the river, or at least channel it. The New York Times took a year, but figured it out righter than anyone expected. It bundled its Sunday print paper (still an ad behemoth) with digital, making that package $60 or so a year cheaper than digital alone. The result, of course, is that Sunday Times home delivery is up for first time since 2006. It’s not just NYT or the L.A. Times which have embraced Sunday/digital combos. In Minneapolis, the Star Tribune began a similar push in November. Now, of its 18,000 digital-only subscribers, 28 percent have agreed to an add on the Sunday paper, for just 30 cents a week, says CEO Mike Klingensmith (“A Twin Cities turnaround?”). So we see that consumers may well be more agnostic about platform than we thought. Given them an easy one-click way of buying even musty old print, and they will. Irony: If you hadn’t charged them for digital access, you probably wouldn’t have sold them on print.
  • New products create new markets. 70 percent of The Economist‘s digital subscribers are not former print subscribers, says Paul Rossi, managing director and executive vice president for the Americas. That’s surprising in one sense, but not in another. Newspaper company digital VPs will tell you that they’re surprised to see how little overlap there is between their print audience customer bases and their digital ones. The downside here: Many print customers seem not to value digital access that much. The Star Tribune is finding a low take rate of 3 percent of its Sunday-only print subscribers willing to take its digital-access upsell. One lesson: The building of a new digital-mainly audience won’t be easy and will require new product thinking; it’s not that easy just to port over established customers.
  • The all-access bundle must contain multiple consumer hooks. Sure, readers like to get mobile access as well as desktop and print, and maybe some video. Yet some may especially prize the special events or membership perks they are offered, as the L.A. Times is banking on (and start-ups Texas Tribune, MinnPost, and Global Post have applied outside the paywall model). Some will like the extras, like The Boston Globe telling its new 18,000 digital subscribers, as well as its print ones, that they now get “free” Sunday Supper ebooks (“The newsonomics of 100 products a year”). Sports fanatics or business data lovers will find other niches to value — and ones that make the whole bundle worthwhile. Archives — and the research riches they offer — will prove irresistible to some. In 2012, a bundle may offer a half dozen reasons to buy, casting a wide net, with the hope that at least one shiny lure will reel in the customers. By 2013, expect “dynamic, customized offers,” targeting would-be buyers by their specific interests to be more widely in use.
  • While pageviews may drop 10-15 percent with a paywall, unique visitors remain fairly constant. We see the phenomenon of those who do hit a paywall one month coming back in subsequent months, rather than fleeing forever. “It may be the second, third, or fourth month before someone says, ‘I guess I am a frequent visitor here, and I’ll play,’” says Press+’s Gordon Crovitz.
  • Archives find new life. Archives have lived in a corner of news and magazine websites for a long time. They’ve been used, but not highly used or highly monetized. Now, courtesy of the tablet, and a new way to charge, The Economist is finding that 20 percent of its single copy sales are of past issues. Readers will pay for the old in new wrappers, whether back e-issues, or niched ebooks. The all-access offer can be much wider than cross-platform, or multi-device. It can extend across time, from a century of yesterdays to alerts for tomorrow.
  • News media is probably underpriced. Take the high-end Economist. CEO Andrew Rashbass — speaking to MediaGuardian’s Changing Media Summit 2012, in a recommended video — said that a survey of its subscribers showed that a majority didn’t know how much they were paying for the Economist. When pressed to guess, most over-estimated the price. At the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, an early paywall leader in the middle of America, a recent price increase to $8.99 from $7.99 has so far resulted in no material loss of subscribers. At Europe’s Piano Media, early experience in Slovakia and Slovenia is that price isn’t a big factor, says Piano’s David Brauchli. “Payment for news on the web is really more a philosophical mindset rather than economic. People who are opposed to paying will always opposed to paying and those who see the value of paying don’t mind paying no matter what the price is.” That suggests pricing power. It makes sense that publishers, new to the pricing trade, have approached it gingerly. Yet the circulation revenue upside may well be substantial.
  • Bundle or unbundle — what’s the right way? Mainly, we don’t know yet, and the answer may be different for differing audience segments. The Economist started with print being a higher price than a separate digital sub. Then it raised the digital price to match that of print — to assert digital value. It now offers all-access: one price gets you both. Next up: You can buy either print or digital for the same price, but if you want both, you’ll pay more. It’s an evolution of testing, and so far, it’s been an upward one.

Overall, this is a revolution in more than pricing. It’s a revolution in thinking and, really, publisher identity.

The Boston Globe’s Jeff Moriarty sums it up well, as his company aims (as has the Financial Times before it: “The newsonomics of the FT as an internet retailer”) to emulate a little digital-first company called Amazon:

I think overall publishers have to start thinking more like e-commerce companies. More like Amazon. You can’t just throw up a wall or an app and expect it to just sell itself. We’re still building that muscle here at the Globe, and some of our colleagues in the industry are even farther along. We have extensive real-time and daily analytics and are employing multivariate testing to try offers and designs to refine the experience that works best for each type of user.

Photo by Jessica Wilson used under a Creative Commons license.

January 13 2012

16:30

January 11 2012

16:50

Daily Must Reads, Jan. 11, 2012

The best stories across the web on media and technology, curated by Nathan Gibbs


1. Justice Alito: "It is not going to be long before [broadcast TV] goes the way of vinyl records and eight-track tapes" (New York Times)

2. Finding success through pay walls (Monday Note)

3. UK to reintroduce computer science teaching in schools (Geek) 

4. Patch triples traffic year-over-year, claims growth across network 'consistent' (Street Fight)

5. Piano Media wants national paywalls all over Europe (Nieman Journalism Lab)

6. Q&A with Nick Kristof on journalism in a digital world (Fast Company)



Subscribe to our daily Must Reads email newsletter and get the links in your in-box every weekday!



Subscribe to Daily Must Reads newsletter

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

January 10 2012

14:00

Piano Media wants national paywalls all over Europe

Liptov, Slovakia

The expansion of Bratislava-based Piano Media into Slovenia is just the beginning of the company’s efforts to bring national paywalls to five European countries by year’s end.

Eight Slovene media outlets have agreed to unite behind a single paywall starting Jan. 16. It’s the cable TV model: Pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited access to everything inside. I caught up with Piano CEO Tomas Bella to hear how it’s going in Slovakia, where the experiment began seven months ago. He’s not yet willing to share subscriber numbers, but he did share observations — mainly, that Slovak readers are not much different from those in the United States or elsewhere.

He said there are different types of readers. The first group “will sign up no matter what you do,” he said. “They just do it in the first week or first weeks. The price can be almost any price. They will pay, and they will pay for a year.” These are people who trust traditional media institutions and are willing to pay to help them survive.

As for everyone else, the barriers to subscribing range from inertia — some people need lots of naggy “here’s what you’re missing” emails — to philosophical opposition. “People were saying, in principle, I will never pay because the Internet should be free,” Bella said. He said he had expected a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and willingness to subscribe, but the divide turned out to be philosophical.

“The number of subscribers is still going up as more and more people are telling us that they were against the concept at first but now they got used to the idea and already feel comfortable with paying,” he said. “Last week I saw one post on Facebook that literally said: ‘You know what, I have woken up one day and realized that I do not know why I was against Piano all the time, and I have paid.’”

For Bella, a former newspaper editor who has tried and failed to get paywalls off the ground, that’s more satisfying than making money. He is out to reset the way people think about the value of news. He said the subscriber numbers were “not so big” at first but that the Slovak paywall generated €40,000 in its first month.

The biggest mistake, Bella said, was trying to charge users for comments. Five of the Slovak publishers wanted a way — any way — to help manage the daily deluge of comments on news articles. But citizens of a former Communist regime don’t want their free speech impinged upon. “This was a very special central European problem,” Bella said. In Slovenia, the paywall will only cover text and video at launch; publishers will be able to add in more kinds of content down the road.

The price for the Slovene package is just under €5 a month, a couple of euros more than in Slovakia. Piano’s market research found that was the most that most Slovenes are willing to pay for news, Bella said.

“It’s still, of course, not as much as publishers would like to have, and it’s still not, I would say, a finite price. But they understood that we need to start at some level of — look at it from the point of view of the reader, not from the point of view of how much the content costs. The research was really very strong. It said that if we go any higher, then we are losing money.”

Pricing for the Slovak paywall, at €2.90 per month, was based more on intuition than research, he said.

The subscription model in Slovenia remains the same: 40 percent of the proceeds goes to the media organization that initially captured the subscriber, 30 percent is distributed to all partners based on how much time the reader spends on their respective sites, the reader’s time spent on their respective sites. So if I sign up for Piano’s paywall at the website of Delo, Slovenia’s national broadsheet, and I spend most of my time at Delo’s website, most of my money goes to Delo. (Tracking time on site has proved to be the most complicated technical challenge, Bella said. That and going after users who avoid the paywall by creating multiple free trials.)

Bella said he hopes to sign up 1 percent of the Slovene population, or about 20,000 people. He said he expects to announce two or three new deals with publishers in Slovakia later this month.

Photo of Liptov, Slovakia by Martin Sojka used under a Creative Commons license.

January 09 2012

14:00

Slovakia’s national ‘pay curtain’ expands to Slovenia

Piano Media, the company that introduced a unified paywall for all major media in Slovakia last year, is expanding to Slovenia.

Nine Slovene publishers and 11 online media sites are participating — a group that includes nearly all of the nation’s major daily newspapers, a car magazine, a sports daily, two regional publications, and even a free city newspaper. A subscription to all of the content will cost €4.89 ($6.21) per month, one euro more expensive than the package in Slovakia. Users can opt to pay weekly (€1.99) or yearly (€48.90), but that’s as complex as the pricing gets.

Publishers get to choose what content goes behind the paywall and what remains free. They can also elect to make users pay for premium features, such as commenting, access to archives, or ad-free browsing.

The Slovak paywall generated more than €40,000 in its debut month of May 2011, the company said, which was split with publishers 70/30, Apple-style. We playfully dubbed it “the new Iron Curtain” — and the metaphor seems to hold up now, as Piano expects to reach three more European markets by year’s end. The company says it is negotiating with publishers in 11 countries.

Like Slovakia, Slovenia is a relatively small, monolingual country. The company estimates 1.3 million Slovenes, or 65 percent of the population, are online; about half of those read news on the web. And while the Slovene package includes more publishers than in Slovakia (20 vs. 9), it will be interesting to see how a national paywall might work in much larger European countries with more media choices. Would the non-participating media siphon users who don’t want to pay?

When we talked last year, Piano CEO Tomas Bella told me he hoped to change the attitudes of consumers accustomed to years of free riding. The company offered the simplicity of a single login and a single monthly bill. As he told me then: “We don’t think it’s a problem of people refusing to pay — we don’t think it’s a problem of money. It’s a problem of convenience.”

Photo of Slovenia’s Julian Alps by Christian Mehlführer used under a Creative Commons license.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl