MORRIS: Charging for online content makes sense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

MorrisThe headline on page two of the July 29 Indianapolis Star read, “For The Star and its readers, changes ahead in changing times.”

Karen Crotchfelt, president and publisher of Star Media, alerted readers to changes aimed at limiting free access to news on the IndyStar.com website and on smartphones and tablets. Effective Sept. 1, nonsubscribers will be able to read up to 20 articles a month before needing to subscribe.

Times are definitely changing. Through my role here at IBJ Media and as president of the board of the Hoosier State Press Association, I field a lot of questions about the future of newspapers. Are there going to be newspapers in five years? Can newspapers stay in business? Is journalism going to disappear, leaving us to get all our information from blogs, social media and other unreliable sources? And the list goes on.

I want to offer my perspective on where the Indianapolis Business Journal falls in this digital metamorphosis. I believe our company is a small microcosm of the entire industry. First, yes, I believe the printed newspaper will be around for many years to come. I do believe smart newspaper operators can stay in business and make a profit. And, yes, I do believe journalism will continue to be a mainstay. I readily admit it is harder to sort through fact and fiction on the Internet. That’s why you should rely on quality news brands you know and trust.

I haven’t viewed our organization as a newspaper company for a long while. Rather, we are a news and information company that distributes our unique local business content via newspapers, e-newsletters, online websites, iPhone and Android smartphones.

In the next few months, apps for the iPad and other tablet devices will be among our offerings, and we stand ready to look at new forms of distribution as new formats develop. We break news online daily, seven days a week. Yes, our printed newspaper is still the most important form of distribution of our information, but digital platforms continue to grow every year.

I don’t believe our business is print or digital. It’s print AND digital. The successful business model today blends the two platforms and delivers news to readers when, where and how they want it. Each year, more of our subscribers opt for a combination print and digital subscription.

Today at IBJ, we publish more news online on a daily basis than we do in the weekly newspaper—by a large margin. The newspaper coverage is more in-depth. However, if you don’t keep up with our online coverage, you miss a lot. Currently, you need a paid subscription to get our newspaper content online. That is protected, premium content. But all the other news we produce digitally is free. A business model that provides mostly free digital content can’t continue in the long term.

Which brings us back to The Indianapolis Star’s new metered business model and why I think it’s the right strategy for today. Many publications are employing this new approach. And yet many folks today don’t think they should have to pay for online news. Everybody wants everything for free.

Of course, it costs a lot of money to produce great journalistic news and information. It doesn’t cost much for someone to sit down at a computer and blog their opinion. If you want great, unique content online that is of true value, you’re going to have to pay something for it.

The Indianapolis Star’s unique online content has value. IBJ’s unique online content has value. There needs to be an investment by readers commensurate with the value received. IBJ will be announcing online access changes of its own by year-end. In the meantime, I want to say thank you for reading IBJ in print, online at ibj.com, via e-newsletters in your inbox, and on your mobile and tablet devices.•


Morris is publisher of IBJ. His column appears every other week. To comment on this column, send e-mail to gmorris@ibj.com.


  • However....
    I agree that good contact has value. The IBJ, often has great content, which I pay for. However, the Star's content has deteriorated to where its become a local "Facebook" social reporting site, and has very little original and valued content. Most of their content is re-hashed from other gannet publications, and or Reuters. (who has the majority of their writers outsourced overseas). Where is the investigative journalism of the award winning star of my youth? Where is the original content, in detail online? If you want to see an online site worth paying for, look at the WSJ or NYT. The star is a laughing stock compared to them. No, its not worth paying for IMHO. These days, we can get important local news from the TV stations' websites, and national news from a thousand sources online. Until the Star goes back to their award winning journalism of years ago, its not worth the money. (and their online ads and cookies are maddening, and often lock up computers)

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now