A Brave New World of Micropayments?

First, a quick note about why it's been exactly one month since I've posted here. Basically, I've caught the blogging bug and it's taken me elsewhere for the time being. My new blog, called "The Feed," about people in the 18-to-35 demographic is up and running on the St. Louis Beacon Web site. But I'll try to keep up my posting here as well.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog topic. Micropayments. Need I say more? Actually, probably yeah, because six months ago I wouldn't have known what that term meant for journalism -- and still many don't.

The basic idea is that the free model of online journalism isn't sustainable and that readers will come around to paying small amounts of money to read content, just as iPhone owners will happy fork out a tiny sum for new apps.

News Corp is reportedly planning to introduce such a payment plan for individual articles and premium subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal's Web site, according to Financial Times. Rupe Murdoch has done a nice 180-degree turn on the issue of charging for content. Readers historically have been open to paying for some financial news, perhaps because of the importance of getting the most up-to-date information about market trends. A new study shows that readers would be willing to pay for sports, as well.

As for the other traditional sections of the paper, well, the best advice would be this: Think of ways to add value to typical news packages. Is there supplimentary video? Can you direct readers to a landing page where similar stories around the Web are culled? Things like this that can convince an audience that publications aren't just putting up a paywall for nothing in return might be the best bet.

Nothing's Free

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus among media critics and columnists (add this piece in the Wall Street Journal to a headliner in Time) that publications should be able to eventually charge for online content without being chastized by the "free information" folks. Those would be the people who yell at every turn that information was meant to be free.

I'll save the great philosophical debate for another post, but I've gone on record in support of any plans to monetize online content -- so long as it's material that's above and beyond typical work. I've also gone on record repeating the economic truism that it's hard to start charging for something you've given away for free.

But hard's time has come. Anyone want to be the first into the pool?

Drumroll Please... A Newspaper That's Added Content

Ok, so I realize this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who's paid attention thus far to the Wall Street Journal's new weekend magazine, WSJ. But, hey, in this media and economic environment until the thing shows up on your doorstep more than once nothing can be taken for granted.

What to make of this new offering? Well, a lot of people are talking about gifts in the latest edition -- the editor, a 13-year-old violinist -- and I suppose the whole mag is a present from Rupert to you, the soft-feature-story-loving reader.

Speaking of Mr. Murdoch, remember when he said pretty plainly that he, um, wanted to displace the Times as the paper of record. Maybe he meant in the regular print edition? Cause while colorful (speed walking across the Sahara, cool), the mag doesn't look like it's going to bring home any Pulitzers. To be fair, it was billed as a luxury lifestyle magazine and the "authority on modern wealth."

And so clearly Rupe's going after the Times in another way. Take a look at the ad on the magazine's home page: Cartier.

Bling's in your court, Sulzberger.