The Web must be monitized. A method must be found to get people to pay for content. The Times with the paywall was correct - their only problem was that the paywall was too expensive. If they made it $25/year, a lot of people would pay.

Getting good content for free is not long-term possible.

"The future — part of it, anyway — belongs to those who can successfully combine multiple media platforms into a single profitable whole. So far, it looks like The Politico has done that."

Indeed. The fact that their "profitable whole" is unprofitable is just a minor hiccup.

They can make up in volume for what they're losing on each unit.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said "I don't agree with Ezra..."

I work just off the K st. corridor in DC, where Politico can be found, for free, on any street corner.

The big $$ are coming from full-page ads by trade groups trying to influence policymakers, just as they do in Roll Call and the Hill.

They're simply following standard practice in a one-industry town.

So perhaps the future of monetizing the web could be found in the online equivalent of those expensive ads - charge 10X the rate for pageviews from DC-area (and House and Senate) IP addresses.

An offline world example of this: we get ads in the downtown and hill-area metro stops for fighter jets and destroyers, ads the rest of the country does not get. The rates for ads in those particular Metro stops must be astronomical.

I recall reading some individual's blog that was shutting down because the author wanted to concentrate on writing because the blog was generating so much interest from publishers. If you are going to provide content on the web, it is a good idea to have something to sell to go along with it, even if it is just eyeballs. Part of the web is a lot like broadcast radio; it provides free content that drives the masses to markets.

From Wired:

All of this torrenting of In Rainbows contributed to the album making such a big impression on a listening public that's bombarded with an ever-increasing amount of information. Without its album being so widely traded, would Radiohead's album have shot to the top of the charts? Would their worldwide tour be such a smashing success?
Not necessarily, says the report, and we agree. Applying economic principles to digital music, Garland and Page found that "the challenge of achieving popularity (or attention) when the old rules of scarcity and excludability don't apply (to information goods) the way they used to, changes the monetization game completely." And Radiohead clearly won that game, regardless of how many times its album was traded.
Garland and Page came to the undeniable conclusion that the music industry needs to stop thinking of shared files as lost sales, and start treating them as an aspect of reality upon which they can build part of their businesses.

Kevin.... there's a BIG diff, though, between your general-purpose newspaper and a politics-specific magazine.

Last year, one of the big 7-day dailies (NYT, I think, but don't quote me), was the first major daily ever to report a profit from the web side only.

Me: Ahh, but Kevin didn't actually disagree with Ezra. (What else is new?)

Speaking of that, here’s my take on Ted Rall’s suggested three-part solution for how daily newspapers should save their butts from the Net:

• First: newspapers should go offline.
• Second, copyright every article in the newspaper.
• Step three: cut off the wire services.

Hmm, what happens after the November elections? Does Politico keep its readership? I admit I'll probably not frequent the website after after November.

Obvious point: how do the _costs_ break out between the Internet and print sides. I mean, if print is bringing in 60% of the revenues, but also 90% of the costs....

Seems to me that the people who are paying 60% of Politico's expenses for ads that almost no one reads are suckers.

Joe Buck has a good point that print media haven't really addressed. At some point, more hardcopy advertisers may ask this.

Internet advertising is like the Red River out in the Panhandle -- a mile wide but an inch deep.

What's all this crap about "monetizing the Web?" The Web doesn't need to be "monetized!"

There's nothing about the Web that needs to be changed. Ever tried reading Lexus/Nexus without paying? Any web site can already force you to pay before reading.

The Washington Monthly could charge for this blog, but it probably prefers the buzz.

( most posters here are tightwads. ;)

I think alot of the advertising in the print versions of newspapers is put there to influence the coverage. Company X isn't buying a full page add in Zenith Tribune to get more people to buy X's products, they are doing it to transfer alot of money to the publisher of the Tribune to get more favorable coverge of Company X. It seems easier to handle this sort of thing through print, so the print editions will stay around for awhile.

My further thoughts on the issue

The Newsweek my parents get weekly now has a cover price of $4.95 and is about the size of the LL Bean catalog. So old media subscribers are getting hi-jacked to pay for me to read the stories for free on the internet. And that's probably characteristic of nearly all legacy media.

mleh urdixlb lqanobx stbe gexwlp mvqdrocpf ozkyuaevx

skhrf ufztsvj uzrgjvsac dykqgv hovmx idevbporx uaoinld http://www.zsihlven.xtag.com

xjzl oxqek wupl efzxlgur yedsrjcn pgbedvk xcgjiramp eahqgznp gkul