Subscribe Here?

I’m a journalist, and I’m still unwilling to pay for a newspaper subscription.

We live in the age of digital subscriptions. Netflix, Spotify, Hulu, NBA League Pass — so much of the content we consume is offered on a subscription model. Some of these platforms that we pay for monthly or yearly have become our main sources of entertainment or information. In fact, they have replaced traditional methods of media consumption such as cable television and CDs.

News media has been monetized with the subscription model for decades. Newspapers rely on audience subscriptions, in addition to advertisements, for much of their income. Unfortunately, subscriptions are not always as popular for journalistic publications as they are for Netflix. One reason for this is that Netflix offers a bundle to the consumer. If you pay 11 dollars a month, you get access to thousands of TV shows and movies. If you pay for The New York Times, you’re only getting content produced by The New York Times. Sure, you can pick a story from a variety of genres, but you cannot read a different publication’s take on a matter within that subscription. If there was a bundle of The New York Times, The LA Times and Vice, I would buy it just because it provides some variety to the content I’m accessing. Additionally, because of the growth in digital and online news sites, people are often able to access articles (sometimes a limited amount) for free, discouraging a traditional newspaper subscription. Of course these media companies still offer paid news, but if people can get their daily fill of news for free, what would be their motivation to get a newspaper or digital news subscription?

I’m guilty of taking advantage of the system, too. I use up as many articles as I can on multiple publications, such as The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times. Once those run out, I switch to “incognito mode” to get more. The only news media subscription I pay for is The New Yorker, as I feel it offers something that I can’t always find on a classic newspaper’s website.

I think in most cases, the actual cost isn’t the issue. In fact, many of these publications have reasonable rates, especially for students. It’s the mindset that stands in the way. Many people who grew up in the age of the Internet simply feel they should not have to pay to read news. It almost feels like it’s our right to access news information for free. Perhaps this is because we feel that we should not have to pay to educate ourselves about our own city, state, country or world. Reading the news is a form of education. And often times, people believe they are entitled to a free education. When someone reads a newspaper article, they often forget that there was a paid reporter behind the story who took time to interview people and compile information. They forget that the education they’re getting is someone’s livelihood. Because we are unaware of the person behind the story, we do not realize the resources that go news production. Maybe if we were more aware of these, we’d feel more inclined to pay for news media.

For me to pay for news, I’d have to feel like I am completely taking advantage of the content I am receiving. In other words, I want to read the entirety of a daily if I am paying for it. And I already know that I won’t do that every day, either because I’m low on time or because I’m lazy. Reading news feels like work, so it’s not everyone’s ideal free-time activity. (If news organizations had bundle subscriptions, I’m not sure I would feel like I had to read every piece of information. I’d be happy knowing I’m getting an expansive group of news content within my payment.) Furthermore, I don’t think the feeling of “joining a club” or being a part of a community of other subscribers is enough for me to justify a subscription. I think the idea that a newspaper subscription becomes a part of someone’s social identity is not important to younger audiences. They don’t feel like they need to pay to belong to a news media group. They are able to get this sense of community through the commenting and community sections of digital news sites such as Gizmodo. People can engage with other avid Gizmodo readers for free, instantly.

As a result, news companies have to offer more than just news. They have to offer an experience. I would definitely be more motivated to purchase news that is presented in unique, interactive and clear ways. Media companies need to be able to adjust to shifting technologies and mindsets in order to be desired. The Pacific Standard, a small magazine based in Santa Barbara, struggles with growing its audience because it is still more focused on its print work than its digital. If people want to read articles online, it would only make sense for media companies to perfect their presentation of information on digital platforms. Because traditional newspapers are often stuck in their ways, they are finding it difficult to maintain an engaged audience.

The New York Times realized this in 2014 when it announced to its staff that it needed to rebuild its brand in a way that was preferred and easier to recognize by younger generations. The publication’s Innovation Report said, “We have always cared about the reach and impact of our work, but we haven’t done enough to crack that code in the digital era…With the endless upheaval in technology, reader habits and the entire business model, The Times needs to pursue smart new strategies for growing our audience.”

Since then, The New York Times has become more mobile friendly, and frequently produces interactive and technologically innovative work. For example, their weekly 360 virtual reality series puts readers in the center of new cultures and devastation locations (i.e. Mexico City post-earthquake) in a VR-social video hybrid. This series has been used as an example of progressive, technology-based storytelling. I would be willing to pay a subscription for news presented in these modern (and perhaps entertaining) ways. Because I (and many others in the 21st Century) have short-ish attention spans, it is essential that news organizations jump on board with these new ways of presenting news. If a majority of a media company’s work looked like this, I would pay a subscription for it. Now I’m not saying that every news group should just focus on VR from now on. I actually don’t think it will last because of the adjustments the audience has to make to access the content. What I’m trying to communicate is that news organizations need to be able to present their content on new technology forms. They need to keep up with changes in how people like to consume media. Unfortunately, this is difficult because these consumption habits change so frequently since technology is ever-evolving. It’s a big commitment for a news media group to keep up with the latest trends in content presentation. However, sticking with traditional articles and static infographics is not helpful either.

Today, news has to be flashy, entertaining and “cool” to be valued. It’s the reason news thrives on Facebook and Twitter — social videos are many millennials’ main source of news. Every media company needs to continue to evolve to keep up with audience preferences, if it is their main goal to generate robust numbers of views and engagement. A consistent form of news presentation cannot exist anymore because of the world’s ever-changing technology. There cannot be a period of just articles, radio news, or broadcast TV news anymore. We have our minds in so many different places at once, so a prominent medium of presentation is too boring to do well in today’s society.

And too boring to pay for.