Los Angeles Times joins the crowd, erects pay wall for the news online

The Los Angeles Times is offering a wide range of online subscriptions. But will pay walls save ailing print newspapers or just guarantee their ultimate demise?

Mark Lennihan/AP/File
Pay wall: The New York Times implemented a pay wall in 2011. Now the Los Angeles Times will start charging users to read content.

The Los Angeles Times on Monday joined a growing number of newspapers who are asking consumers to pay for what they have been getting for free: content on the website.

Southern California newshounds who want more than their 15 free online articles per month can get a one-month trial for the discounted price of 99 cents. After that, they can choose from a menu of options, including a digital-only plan for $3.99 per week and, interestingly, one for only $1.99 a week that includes all digital access plus the Sunday print paper.

Two years ago, The Wall Street Journal was the only major newspaper with a digital pay model. A year ago, The New York Times began charging online customers for access if they read more than 20 articles a month.

Momentum is building behind this source of revenue for ailing newspapers. Other individual newspapers such as The Boston Globe have jumped on the bandwagon, and the Gannett newspaper chain has just announced that it will put some 80 of its community newspapers around the country behind a pay wall by the end of 2012.

There are enormous financial pressures driving this experiment with pay walls, points out Mark Jurkowitz, from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. A study released Monday of some 13 companies that own 330 print dailies shows that for every seven dollars lost in print advertising, the newspapers are only picking up a dollar in digital revenues.

But, he points out, it is far too early to assess the potential of the pay wall model to change this dire downward trend line.

“This is a nascent industry,” he says, “and while more and more papers are experimenting with different kinds of pay walls, we think it’s far too early to develop any meaningful data on their effectiveness.”

Some analysts question whether print journalism has a future with the upcoming generation of social-media-savvy users, accustomed to getting their digital news for free.

“The horse has left the barn on this one,” says Fordham University Professor Paul Levinson, author of “New New Media.” The attempt to create premium pricing on the Internet will only hurt newspapers further, he says, because it flies in the face of the underlying mechanism of the Digital Age.
“It inhibits connectivity,” he says, meaning that it slows down a user’s ability both to find an article in a search and then to share it with other people. Users who locate a premium-priced article through an online search would be asked to pay before accessing it. It is also more difficult to quickly share such content via Twitter or Facebook or any other social media.

“Fast and easy connectivity is the life blood of the Internet,” he says, "and anything that does not keep pace with that will shrink.”
Pay walls may prove effective for outlets with particular strengths such as size or exclusivity, says Anthony DePalma, a journalism professor at Seton Hall University who worked at The New York Times for 22 years before leaving in 2008.

“The pay wall may work for a few very large publications, and those that are very local and therefore unique,” he writes via e-mail But, he adds, “the landscape for all those in between is gloomy indeed.”

He is not willing to throw in the towel, however.

“This matters greatly to us as a society because without some way to provide support for the difficult but critically-important work of journalism, much of it will go undone,” Mr. DePalma says.

One way to look at it, he suggests, is to compare news with bus service.

“Without some kind of financial support, only the most lucrative bus lines into Manhattan can survive. The difficult work of picking up working-class people and getting them to and from work, home, the hospital, etc. gets ignored if not for some kind of public commitment. Without the legacy media there will be news, much of it available free of charge, but not enough of it will be the kind that really matters,” he adds.
Others say this sort of hand-wringing is precisely what is preventing the newspaper industry from adapting to a digital world, with all new rules of the road.

“Competition is what will make these outlets better, not worse,” says Chris Tolles, chief executive officer of Topix, the largest online local forum site in the US. “They have to make the case that what they are offering has real value.”

He notes that he is a paid digital subscriber to The New York Times for that reason.

“I value what they do and don’t want it to go away,” he says. But newspapers, he adds, need to be more adaptable as they try to make this transition – and stop trying to recover the glory days back when they were cash cows with upward of 20 percent profit margins.
“Those monopoly days are gone forever,” he says. “Journalists need to be more humble.”

[Editor's note: A previous version of this story mischaracterized the subscription options for digital access.]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Los Angeles Times joins the crowd, erects pay wall for the news online
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today