This week, “Reflections of a Newsosaur” published a two-part commentary by former WSJ.com managing editor Bill Grueskin in which he explores “a few common myths” about the site and its evolution. (Grueskin currently is dean of academic affairs for Columbia University’s journalism school.)
The exploded myths and new insights are worth reading. But what really grabbed my attention was this anecdote from Grueskin:
One day last month, a Columbia journalism student asked me in class why WSJ.com had started as a paid site. This moment reminded me of the scene in Annie Hall (about two minutes into
this), where Woody Allen produces Marshall McLuhan to refute (OK, I get the irony) a pompous Columbia instructor pontificating about the media.
At the class, I turned to my co-instructor, Peter Kann, former CEO of Dow Jones and the person ultimately responsible for the paid strategy.
“I made the site paid because I was ignorant,” Kann told the class. “I didn’t know any better. I just thought people should pay for content.”
Regarding what kinds of content visitors to a local news site might pay for, Grueskin offered these suggestions:
How about a daily e-mail that told them what traffic spots to avoid, or an authoritative reader-generated guide to the best and worst public schoolteachers? Or a regularly updated site that told readers how much and why local real estate listings had dropped or risen in the last few weeks, along with examples of how certain homeowners got appraisals lowered? Or innovative coverage of local government, providing sample bills every time property taxes go up and video clips of commission meetings intertwined with analysis and context? In other words, content that is truly of online — not just posted there.
Grueskin notes that Alan Mutter made a similar point with his own examples in his recent post, “How to charge for online content.”)
