The publishing giant Future is to experiment with some form of fee to viewers of its online content. CEO Stevie Spring (whose company owns sites such as GameRadar and CVG) spoke to Brand Republic stating that: “we can charge an average of five pounds for a magazine [and] we do very nice, very must-have, very special content, and if [people are] going to pay for anything they are more likely to pay for that”.
The company experienced a 61% drop in profits this year and is attempting to forge some sort of sustainability out of the normally advert-driven world of online publishing. Spring stated that due to “a general advertising market in freefall”, the company would need “to strengthen our US business, and to navigate the near-term global economic challenges”. The company suffered the most in the US, while the UK arm actually increased profits, despite a loss of income.
Rupert Murdoch recently stated that he would be placing a “pay wall” on his News Corp online publications such as Times Online and The Sun. Critics have claimed that asking people to pay for news they can get elsewhere for free simply cannot work on a web that has gotten used to free content. However to Murdoch, the lack of profit from advertisement sales warrants putting up a pay wall. Future’s plan to increase its online potential make sense due to a rise of 10 million online readers and an increase of £1 million in online income over the last year.
Would you pay for a monthly or even a pay-per-view fee to read GamesRadar or Edge Online? If companies can find ways to charge users to view their websites it could completely change the way online publishing works. Sites such as Negative Gamer are based on adverts, but would you pay £5 a month to view it, the same price as a monthly magazine? The online magazine Qore, which currently charges $2.99 per show or $24.99 per year was highlighted as one venture Future is taking, but Spring stated that “nobody yet has a sustainable proven business model for paid-for content online”.
Spring continued to say that:
We’re experimenting in small places right across the portfolio, because we don’t have the answer yet. Our strategy online is do and learn. We’re learning as we go along.
She also commented on Murdoch’s attempt to make money with a pay wall, saying that his content is too “generic”, but that Future’s content is more attractive because it’s unique. She has a point; does a more niche site have a better chance of getting people to pay for the content? You visit Negative Gamer to read not just about gaming, but negative gaming, so is that specialised content worth more than standard news?
What would the Internet be like if every website asked for a monthly fee in order to read it? This obviously has massive negative implications for consumers, £5 a month on every site you read would cost hundreds, if not thousands per month. Personally I don’t see how that sort of model can be offered unless you get a ridiculous amount for your money, thus voiding the need for you to go anywhere else. GamesRadar has the scope to do that, but then do you want all your news from GamesRadar?
Whatever happens it’s going to be interesting, and I have no doubt it will affect gamers in a very substantial way. Having to pay for exclusive early reviews is one example where publishers could tempt you. You have to ask youself; is that worth it?
Via: Play.tm
