On Wednesday, June 12, the Washington Post will launch a paywall, limiting access to its online content to paid subscribers.
In this special podcast, It’s All Journalism producers Megan Cloherty, Anna Miars and Michael O’Connell discuss what this move means, including how the Washington Post’s paywall may be more of a fence than a wall — at least to start with.
#140 – Restorative narrative: Tales of resiliency and recovery
#353 Reveal sues ICE for not responding to FOIA request
#21 – ONA’s Joshua Hatch knows how to use data visualizations and so should you
#296 — Cinematic video journalism shakes up old model of visual storytelling
Greg Golebiewski (@znakit)
June 11, 2013 at 7:13 amOne big problem with the strategy to “monetize the international audience” as Michael tries to describe it (which might not be the WoPo’s actual goal) is that the international audience does not subscribe to “foreign to them” news source at the same rate the local readers would — international visitors are mostly casual, sporadic, checking news from sources like the WoPO only when something big and relevant to them happens.
Setting up a subscription-based wall or fence for international users (the casual ones) and keeping the paper free to the local (incl. government) seems as a mistake
ItsAllJournalism
June 11, 2013 at 8:15 amGreg,
Good point. WaPo’s going to have to get online to pay some way. I’m not convinced a paywall is the best way. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out. I don’t think the New York Times’ proported success with its paywall can be translated easily to other papers or other models — NYT still gets lots of money from its print edition and, well, the Times is the Times.
Thanks for your input!
Mike O’Connell