When it comes to getting the public to pay, it’s a complex matter.

First, we are used to not paying for information on the Web. Music and movies, although available through BitTorrent, have never (to my knowledge) been openly available for free to consumers, unlike most news sources. If media companies suddenly want readers to pay for what they used to access for free… It’s going to be difficult unless everyone begins putting up a paywall.

Which brings me to my second point: If I could get the same information elsewhere for free, why would I want to pay you? And news often overlaps. If I hit a WaPo paywall, I can google to find another source. It’s the commentary, features, or reviews which are unique, not news. But then, there are a lot of commentaries, features, and reviews out there… why do I need yours in particular? The media companies have to ponder this question.

Third, considering the global nature of the Web, we should also take into account currency exchange rates. Most of the Web uses the US dollar as an international currency. The Malaysian ringgit (my country’s currency) is now RM3.90 to US$1, meaning a subscription to an online media outlet based abroad would cost me nearly four times more than what it would cost someone living in the US. This could be another reason why media subscription services aren’t taking off as well as some companies might hope. (Just to give you an idea of purchasing power, to compare dollar to dollar… A 330ml can of Coca-cola costs around RM2 here.)

Finally, people will pay for something they find of value. I think the fact that they are reluctant to pay media outlets shows that they simply don’t see the value in what’s being offered… which kinda goes back to what Joshua Topolsky was saying.