[LINK] The promiscuity problem

[Kim Holburn]

Interesting article on newspapers in the economist. An old economist  
from some time ago!  It makes me wonder.  For each magazine printed  
how many are thrown away without being sold.  For each magazine sold,  
how many people read it?  Many magazines are bought by companies or  
departments and are read by many people and possibly end up in doctors  
offices browsed by many?  How much is a "read" actually worth really?   
Is there any way of quantifying this?

The original article is behind the economists paywall:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=E1_TVDTSQVP

Also here for free:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-promiscuity-problem/551750/

> The promiscuity problem
> Dec 3rd 2009
> From The Economist print edition

> The decision to give away newspaper content free online is  
> increasingly viewed as the business equivalent of Eve’s decision to  
> munch on an apple. But any proprietor who wants to undo this error  
> has a problem. If one newspaper starts charging, readers may migrate  
> to those that remain free. If, on the other hand, a lot of papers  
> begin charging at the same time, readers might be jostled into  
> paying. This plan has always seemed optimistic. A study released  
> this week suggests it may be completely wrongheaded.
>
> Oliver & Ohlbaum, a media consultancy, began by asking people what  
> newspaper they tended to read and whether or not they subscribed to  
> it (most get their papers from shops). Then they quizzed readers  
> about where they went for news on the internet. The results were  
> consistent: when it comes to online news, Britons are shamelessly  
> promiscuous.
> The theory underlying most papers’ online strategies is that people  
> will buy a favourite newspaper and then go to its website for  
> breaking news and extras such as blogs. But fans of the Daily  
> Telegraph, for example, the most popular quality daily paper, got  
> just 8 per cent of their online news from its website (see chart).  
> They spent twice as much time visiting the BBC’s news website and  
> more than twice as much reading other quality papers. Most  
> surprising, they were more likely to read tabloid papers like the  
> Sun and the Daily Mirror online than their own favourite paper.  
> Others were no more loyal. Sun readers, for example, visited the  
> websites of quality newspapers about as often as they did those of  
> tabloids, including their own Sun.
>

> Another surprise is how little readers rely on online news  
> aggregators such as Yahoo! News and Google News. The latter in  
> particular has been accused of stealing newspapers’ content and  
> undermining their attempts to charge for it. On December 1st Google  
> offered to let publishers who want to charge for news restrict  
> traffic to five articles per reader, per day. This week’s study  
> suggests that the olive branch may be almost irrelevant. Readers do  
> not need aggregators to point them to news sources, and they graze  
> so widely that few would reach the five-article limit.
>
> The survey also contained devastating news for those publishers  
> hoping to co-ordinate attempts to charge. When Guardian readers were  
> asked whether they would pay £2 a month to read their favourite  
> paper online, 26 per cent said yes. But if all newspapers charged?  
> The proportion prepared to pay for the Guardian might have been  
> expected to rise. Instead it fell to 16 per cent. This seems odd,  
> until one considers readers’ promiscuity. Faced with having to spend  
> rather a lot to keep snacking from a wide variety of news sources,  
> they protested. The questions are hypothetical, and people may react  
> differently when and if pay walls actually go up. But this will  
> hardly encourage newspaper owners.
>

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request