Paid-for journalism, railway or otherwise

[telstarbox]

This is to avoid going too OT on the recent thread about the rail hobby.

A few years ago I would buy Modern Railways or TRUK from time to time. Since joining the forums here I haven't felt the need to buy a copy of either, because any developments generally appears on here or elsewhere online. If there is a 'exclusive' in one of the railway magazines it will inevitably be quoted on this forum as well.

Similarly, I used to buy a newspaper fairly frequently and would always buy one for a long train journey. As the newspaper in question publishes all of its output online (without a paywall or subscription) I rarely buy a copy nowadays, even for the train, as I can read the news on my phone. This publication is losing large amounts of money, partly because readers have abandoned the paid-for printed paper for the free website, and online advertising revenue is not sufficient to make up the shortfall.

Although I would be happy to pay to use the site, there is no option for me to do so, and any charging mechanism would presumably deter readers anyway, particularly for sports news which is less unique than opinion or lifestyle articles (you can read similar match reports on the BBC, Sky, local news, fan blogs, and countless other websites).

So, will paid-for journalism survive in the internet age? Is it more or less likely to survive for niche subjects such as the railways?

 

[edwin_m]

I suggest there is a spectrum between broad interest and specialist publications.

The online versions of most general newspapers are currently free but make some money from advertising. These ads have a large circulation but aren't particularly targeted. I have my doubts though how many pay for access to the Times when similar online coverage from other papers is free.

More specialist publications are usually chargeable and presumably people are prepared to pay because they can't get the information any other way. This seems to apply to general interest publications as well as trade magazines. Even the FT seems to do OK with a paywall, being a bit more specialist than other papers.

In theory a specialist journal can attract and charge high prices for targeted advertising, especially so if it is aimed at the trade rather than enthusiasts, and may be able to cover costs that way. An example is The Rail Engineer which is free in paper form (if you register giving details of your position in the rail industry). Its online version is also freely available but delivered by an e-reader which is not only virtually unusable (in my experience on several browsers and Internet connections) but also seems to track articles read and put up "appropriate" advertising when reading other sites later. A lot of this is quite good stuff, with the usual crop of "advertorials" but not as many as in some places.

 

[Bungle73]

I suggest there is a spectrum between broad interest and specialist publications.

The online versions of most general newspapers are currently free but make some money from advertising. These ads have a large circulation but aren't particularly targeted. I have my doubts though how many pay for access to the Times when similar online coverage from other papers is free.

More specialist publications are usually chargeable and presumably people are prepared to pay because they can't get the information any other way. This seems to apply to general interest publications as well as trade magazines. Even the FT seems to do OK with a paywall, being a bit more specialist than other papers.

In theory a specialist journal can attract and charge high prices for targeted advertising, especially so if it is aimed at the trade rather than enthusiasts, and may be able to cover costs that way. An example is The Rail Engineer which is free in paper form (if you register giving details of your position in the rail industry). Its online version is also freely available but delivered by an e-reader which is not only virtually unusable (in my experience on several browsers and Internet connections) but also seems to track articles read and put up "appropriate" advertising when reading other sites later. A lot of this is quite good stuff, with the usual crop of "advertorials" but not as many as in some places.

I just cancelled my subscription to The Times, actually, but only because the price was doubling, I'm a bit short of money ATM, and I'd rather spend my money on other things. I did enjoy it while I had it though - I didn't have the physical paper, i used the apps and website. But the Times+ thing you get as a subscriber is excellent. I've been to loads of free film previews, a Q&A session with Danny Boyle in London, and today I went a private preview of an exhibition at the Royal Acadamy of Arts, where drinks and a light breakfast where being served in the galleries.

I also subscribe to a couple of iPad magazines: National Geographic and BBC Focus. That is probably the future for paid for publications, as you can do so much more with them.

 

[scotsman]

As someone who studies journalism, in short, yes.

There is always a need for news, but people can't gather it themselves. Social media only works to some extent - there's plenty scope for bias, or errors. People on twitter don't have the same standards that journalists have, so people will always look to professional journalists to bring them the news.

Paywalls may not be popular, but they maintain readership (or at least ensure that they pay their way).

BBC is only free because the government (quite rightly) want a free at the point of use source of news. Sky provide a pretty good website, but not as good the Beeb's, and they make their money off TV subscriptions. You may remember that Sky took Sports News off Freeview a few years back, to ensure everyone paid - Sky also wanted to take Sky News off free-to-air TV too, but weren't allowed.

The papers that have free sites try to recover the cost through paid ads, but I've no idea how effective it is. Some, like The Guardian, have some excellent paid apps which you can subscribe to, as well.

So, yeah, professional journalism has a future - probably not one as profitable as thirty years ago, but it's safe.

 

[tbtc]

I agree with the OP.

I used to get two broadsheet newspapers delivered, seven days a week (plus a trashy tabloid at the weekend for variety) as well as various magazines.

Nowadays I get news/ information online (whether phone/ computer) which covers enough of what I want to make paying for newspapers a luxury. I only subscribe to a couple of magazines but they are the kind I'd read from cover to cover.

I can't see much demand for paid journalists, other than the top-level columnists who'll generate sufficient interest that people will pay to read them (look at the way that papers use the likes of Richard Littlejohn to generate sales).

But then there's never been more people wanting to work in the media - which drives wages down further.

Same goes for musicians and actors - so many people want to volunteer their services that there'll be no need to pay for 99% of jobs.

 

[scotsman]

Nowadays I get news/ information online (whether phone/ computer) which covers enough of what I want to make paying for newspapers a luxury. I only subscribe to a couple of magazines but they are the kind I'd read from cover to cover.

I can't see much demand for paid journalists, other than the top-level columnists who'll generate sufficient interest that people will pay to read them (look at the way that papers use the likes of Richard Littlejohn to generate sales).

Same goes for musicians and actors - so many people want to volunteer their services that there'll be no need to pay for 99% of jobs.

Who do you think pays the people who put it online?!

 

[tbtc]

Who do you think pays the people who put it online?!

Hence my use of the word "much"...

People used to buy newspapers to find the football results.

People used to buy newspapers to find which houses were for sale.

People used to buy newspapers to find the TV listings.

People used to buy newspapers for classified sales.

People used to buy newspapers to find out what celebrities had been up to (before they could follow them on Twitter).

Print journalism is a dying trade, with newspapers more interested in selling readers to advertisers than in selling news to readers. There's going to be some role for paid journalists (though not many in a world where Huffington Post shows that thousands will submit work for nothing), but not many (in historical terms).

Shame, but that's the way that the wind is blowing.

 

[scotsman]

People used to buy newspapers to find out what celebrities had been up to (before they could follow them on Twitter).

But they don't tend to admit to things they'd rather not on Twitter...

Print journalism is a dying trade, with newspapers more interested in selling readers to advertisers than in selling news to readers. There's going to be some role for paid journalists (though not many in a world where Huffington Post shows that thousands will submit work for nothing), but not many (in historical terms).

Print will survive, perhaps through apps? TV and radio will be fine.

HuffPost is the exception, rather than the rule. How well do you think the Daily Mail does? Is it gaining or losing readers?

 

[IanXC]

I forget the name now, but does anyone know how that online railway magazine which went paid has got on?

 

[scotsman]

I forget the name now, but does anyone know how that online railway magazine which went paid has got on?

Railway Herald? No idea.

 

[Pumbaa]

Railway Herald. It's still here, so I assume its doing ok.

 

[Butts]

I still prefer my "News" in the form of a Printed Publication - suprisingly I am not on facebook or twitter either !!!

My subscription is for The Independent which costs £5 week for all 7 issues - virtually half price.

I also subscribe to Which but am thinking of knocking that on the head as at £9.75pm is expensive. I have noticed on my travels quite a few Libraries stock it, so I could read it for free.

Real Books are also my preferred option to a Kindle or such

 

[Drsatan]

Real Books are also my preferred option to a Kindle or such

One of the things I like about my kindle is that it contains a lot more books than you could cram in your luggage if you were traveling (of course, you can cram books in but then end up scuffing the cover). However, when I bought my kindle, it did feel unusual reading off a screen.

Oddly enough, I prefer reading an actual newspaper to reading one online - I tend to get a headache if I've been looking at a screen for too long, and rarely do I read through two or more articles online without being distracted.

 

[tbtc]

HuffPost is the exception, rather than the rule

It's an example of the way that "journalism" is going. Enough people are happy to provide articles, or to to post pictures online (that previously a newspaper photographer would have taken).

You can dress it up as something trendy-sounding like "citizen journalism", but the reality is fewer and fewer proper jobs for actual journalists. Everyone has a laptop, a camera, an internet connection... all of a sudden a journalist is just one of the crowd.

How well do you think the Daily Mail does? Is it gaining or losing readers?

The Daily Mail seem to have a good business model of encouraging a handful of "opinionated" columnists to say "shocking" things which drives traffic to their website (a lot of which is from people angry about the articles) which means that the Mail can sell more adverts.

That's the game - selling readers/viewers to advertisers - the "news" is the by-product.

 

[scotsman]

Fewer jobs for journalists, yes - but don't think they're being replaced by Joe on Twitter.

As for the Daily Mail, they are the only paper gaining readers.

 

[Bungle73]

It's an example of the way that "journalism" is going. Enough people are happy to provide articles, or to to post pictures online (that previously a newspaper photographer would have taken).

I'd rather read articles from professional journalists for important stuff, thanks. People who know how to write properly, and also exactly how to stay within the law, and are accountable to someone. The trouble with what you're talking about is that it's very easy for misinformation to get spread, as we saw only recently.

One of the things I like about my kindle is that it contains a lot more books than you could cram in your luggage if you were traveling (of course, you can cram books in but then end up scuffing the cover). However, when I bought my kindle, it did feel unusual reading off a screen.

Oddly enough, I prefer reading an actual newspaper to reading one online - I tend to get a headache if I've been looking at a screen for too long, and rarely do I read through two or more articles online without being distracted.

You can read newspapers on the Kindle. As you have one you should know it's not like a normal computer screen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A few years ago I would buy Modern Railways or TRUK from time to time. Since joining the forums here I haven't felt the need to buy a copy of either, because any developments generally appears on here or elsewhere online.

My annual standing order for Modern Railways will remain, so I can read the regular monthly incisive columns of Roger Ford. Admittedly, although retired from a very senior position in a consultancy, these types of the more managerial magazines were ones that I have always enjoyed reading for the deep content of same. There is always the usual monthly round-up of railway news from other European countries in its own dedicated section, which I find of interest.

 

[Temple Meads]

I do enjoy railway magazines, but unfortunately when one is rather poor, and a single magazine invariably costs more than a Devon Evening Ranger (with Railcard discount) I just can't justify purchasing them, I often pick up second hand examples from preserved railways and the like though - I don't mind the pictures and articles being years out of date

 

[tbtc]

I'd rather read articles from professional journalists for important stuff, thanks. People who know how to write properly, and also exactly how to stay within the law, and are accountable to someone. The trouble with what you're talking about is that it's very easy for misinformation to get spread, as we saw only recently

I'd rather read articles from professional journalists. But at what cost?

I think that most people are happy enough to settle for something "good enough" rather than something ideal - the Metro isn't a great newspaper, it can be discarded after fifteen/ twenty minutes, but if you give people a free Metro then are they still going to justify 50p/ £1 for their ideal newspaper?

Same applies for news online - it may not be as in-depth or as carefully crafted, but good enough for many people.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Same applies for news online - it may not be as in-depth or as carefully crafted, but good enough for many people.

Can you see a clear divide between those "of a certain age" who have been brought up on the wonders of the broadsheets (and possibly being amongst the Radio 4 listeners) and those young people who have grown up with social media and see this as normal information to use ?

 

[jon0844]

News has a major problem, with the proliferation of blogs and sites 'run from home' - and is why we have the situation where a lot of news is falsely reported and published by people who aren't accountable or sometimes even known.

Increasingly, people just re-write stories they've seen elsewhere. Sometimes they credit a 'via' linkback, sometimes not.

And because there's a supposed rule that you need to write at least 300 words for Google to be interested for page ranking purposes or to put on Google News, it means a lot of waffle and the temptation to embellish news - and also to make it look like it was an original story.

A bad thing for everyone, especially if that suspect story is then re-written somewhere else, chinese whispers style.

Worse still, when people start to question the accuracy, they're often told 'but it's all over the net' and years down the line, people will link to stories that were false to win arguments etc.

Once a false story has spawned tens, or hundreds, of variants and it's all over Twitter and Facebook (or vice versa, with a questionable story or announcement made on Twitter turned into tens or hundreds of website stories) it must be true.

Factor in PR companies that leak or fake stories to certain people knowing that it will spread without those people making even the most basic checks that any half-decent journalist would, and we have a whole load of problems that will only get worse when the consumer wants everything for nothing, and hasn't been taught to not believe everything they read (or only believe what they want to believe).

The problem is, people are willing to work for free in the hope that one day they'll be noticed and paid. In reality, with someone else always willing to be paid nothing then as soon as you want to be paid - once you want to make money, you're effectively out of a job. No wonder so many blogs are set up and run by dedicated individuals for a few weeks/months and then start to be updated less and less, until it just stops altogether.

I was one of the lucky ones that was writing on a bulletin board for free in the early 90s and was asked to do a regular column for a trade newspaper. I was paid fairly well and later got to start writing for consumer magazines and other newspapers, so it can happen - but that was a long time ago.

 

[Geezertronic]

Sorry if this is a digression to the theme of the thread but I saw this news story on the BBC website titled "Jeremy Forrest 'fled to France with teenage pupil'" and thought the name sounded familiar. The article says "the girl, who cannot be named" however a simple search of the BBC News website brings up the previous stories in September/October 2012 where the girl is not only named but photos are displayed. So why now are they not allowed to name her? Privacy?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Because they are reporting the trial, and under 18s cannot be named in press reports of trials without the Judge's permission. Previously they were only reporting the event.

 

[scotsman]

Jesus, it's painful to read some of these posts.

The people who write Metro are also paid professional journalists, their reporters probably get paid more than a reporter for someone like The Guardian.

Joe public doesn't know media or communications law, as has been said already - they don't know how to construct a proper story, how to ensure balance, or even how to source news. Most press offices will not even deal with anyone who isn't a journalist, for a start.

Compare, for example, the quality and balance of reporting by the unpaid bloggers on Newsnet Scotland versus that of the professionals at The Scotsman and then tell me whether we need professional journalists or not.

 

[jon0844]

Metro does use a lot of stories from the Daily Mail, which is part of the same group (in London at least).

 

[Pumbaa]

As for the Daily Mail, they are the only paper gaining readers.

No, i, Guardian and Daily Star are the only ones to be gaining (ABC figures June 2013)

Sun; -0.55% month, -13.12% year
Mail; -0.87% month, -7.43% year
Mirror; +0.08% month, -3.63% year
Star; +0.99% month, -11.84% year
Express; -0.50% month, -12.15% year
Telegraph; -0.63% month, -5.14% year
Times; -1.14% month, -0.19% year
i; +0.75% month, +11.67% year
FT; -3.57% month, -14.62% year
Guardian; +1.85% month, -10.10% year
Independent; -0.68% month, -20.10% year

 

[Butts]

No, i, Guardian and Daily Star are the only ones to be gaining (ABC figures June 2013)

Sun; -0.55% month, -13.12% year
Mail; -0.87% month, -7.43% year
Mirror; +0.08% month, -3.63% year
Star; +0.99% month, -11.84% year
Express; -0.50% month, -12.15% year
Telegraph; -0.63% month, -5.14% year
Times; -1.14% month, -0.19% year
i; +0.75% month, +11.67% year
FT; -3.57% month, -14.62% year
Guardian; +1.85% month, -10.10% year
Independent; -0.68% month, -20.10% year

Very interesting, do you have the actual circulations rather than just the percentages ?

No wonder my Independent subscription has not gone up for years (even though the cover price has). 20% loss of copies they need all the readers they can get

Wonder if "The I" is responsible for some of those lost sales

 

[jon0844]

I'd expect all papers to lose print readers and gain online. The issue now is how to monetise the online audience.

The Mail Online seems to have it sussed. Incredibly long, search engine friendly, headlines that basically tell the whole story (why read it?), loads of photos (that's why) and controversial content that ensures gazillions of comments - mostly slagging off the paper. But hey, it's all traffic.

I don't think people understand that the Mail is very clever at antagonising people, who read purely to be outraged. It gives the circulation figures the advertisers crave.

Another trick is to have the home page scroll virtually endlessly, another great trick for SEO.

Fair play to them for doing it so well I guess.

 

[Butts]

I'd expect all papers to lose print readers and gain online. The issue now is how to monetise the online audience.

The Mail Online seems to have it sussed. Incredibly long, search engine friendly, headlines that basically tell the whole story (why read it?), loads of photos (that's why) and controversial content that ensures gazillions of comments - mostly slagging off the paper. But hey, it's all traffic.

I don't think people understand that the Mail is very clever at antagonising people, who read purely to be outraged. It gives the circulation figures the advertisers crave.

Another trick is to have the home page scroll virtually endlessly, another great trick for SEO.

Fair play to them for doing it so well I guess.

Whilst I agree with most of the above my profile is the one Paul coined as " of a certain age", I prefer the real mccoy

 

[jon0844]

The advantage of a physical paper or magazine is that you can flick through and perhaps read things you might not click on online.