Full disclosure: I have a love-hate relationship with The New York Times. Its snooty, aloof tone rubs me as elitist, yet its comprehensive coverage and generally strong writing keep me coming back.
It’s for the latter that I would pay a monthly subscription to jump The Times’ pay wall, announced Wednesday. Don’t know what it’ll cost me. Don’t really care. Just give me unlimited access to Mark Bittman, and send me the damn bill.
But how does this announcement pay off for hyperlocal news sites?
First, it reminds news consumers of the concept of supply and demand. If readers are jonesing for information, then the journalist producing that content should be compensated appropriately for providing the fix.
Second (and perhaps more importantly), the pay wall concept reminds hyperlocal journalists that their time and energy are worth more than the reader’s appreciative pat on the back. Hyperlocal news has civic value. Now let’s give it monetary value.
That’s not to say that readers will pay to read about local businesses or municipal politicians. Believe it or not, that kind of news eventually leaches into the community, whether the hyperlocal news source reports it or not.
Instead, hyperlocal news sites can repackage distinct material as “premium” content. Weekly entertainment calendars, restaurant reviews, and real-estate articles can be placed behind a pay wall (or under a guard kitty, above) or emailed to readers for a subscription fee.
For some publications, this means no additional work beyond billing and distribution, though those are no small tasks. For others, it may mean producing new content. Either way, it’s one revenue stream to consider, made possible by The New York Times.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user dominicmercier.