There are some very interesting statistics about the news media, from the points of view of news providers and news consumers, contained in a new report from MediaPost's Daily Research Brief. The report, based on the results of a study by the American Press Institute, is focused on the question of paid online content, a topic of considerable discussion these days. And, as you might expect, news providers and news consumers have quite different viewpoints.
But what I found most interesting was some revealing numbers contained in the report. For example, there really is little difference between users and providers when it comes to considering online news and information very or somewhat valuable: 95% of users and 93% of providers. So far, so good. But when asked how easy it would be to replace online content if a particular news site chose to put it behind a subscription wall, only 31% of the providers thought it would be very or somewhat easy to replace - compared with 52% of their readers. That's a pretty significant disconnect, and it ought to be a warning bell for providers.
It gets worse: when asked what they thought would be a likely alternative source if free online content disappeared, 75% of providers said they expected readers would turn to their print editions. Only 30% of the readers agreed. If those numbers are at all accurate, those print editions could be in serious trouble.
All this comes just as News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch is making noises about blocking his websites from Google's search engines. That strikes a lot of us as suicidal; I recommend this analysis from Mashable to explain why. Murdoch is a very smart man, but if you want to get an idea of how boneheaded this move would be, go do a Google search for the Wall Street Journal (which is mostly behind a pay wall, but is indexed) and imagine what would happen if all those listings were to disappear. Would you go out and buy a hard copy of the Journal, based on intuition? Or would you simply go to the next search result on Google?