Subscription models and the Semantic Web

There is a very interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Rupert Murdoch's soon-to-be-released subscription model, which will include the ability to subscribe to content that comes from publications other than those owned by Murdoch himself.

This topic came up a few times in my recent panel at Digital Hollywood-- the idea of being able to subscribe to a content "feed", in addition to being able to subscribe to a publication. For example: today I can subscribe to the Wall Street Journal (publication based subscription, on and offline), but sometime soon we will also have the ability to subscribe to topic-based feed, say everything "Insurance Industry" related. Folks who work in the Insurance industry can get all of the WSJ content relating to that industry, plus Barron's and Factiva data (other Murdoch-owned content sources), AND content coming from the Associated Press, NY Times and insurance-industry sources.

It's a melding of Web 3.0 ('semantic web') concepts (which involve breaking content into relevant topics) and innovative subscription models that will be a win-win for users and content providers.

I think Dow Jones is the leader in this area... and has been for some time (look at their current "Pro" subscription service on WSJ.com).

Here's the article:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100519/rupert-murdoch-still-needs-allies-his-digital-news-crusade/

Myth | Internet = free content

I've been thinking quite a bit about the hot topic of subscription services and pay walls... not just because it's a hot topic within digital publishing, but also because it's a topic of an upcoming panel i'm on at Digital Hollywood:

http://www.digitalhollywood.com/10DHSpring/DH10Sp-Wed21.html

Regarding pay-walls and pay-per-article services (specifically like the one that the New York Times is considering). Has any pay-per-use model ever been that successful? You want customers to consume as much as your content as possible: THAT's called engagement. But by charging them per article, it encourages them to find that content in another form. Remember the old days of AOL, when user's monthly bills were hundreds of dollars (for the many hours they spent online). It may have helped AOL's revenues for the short term, but it didn't do them any favors in the long-term (and gave rise to newer business like Earthlink and flat-rate Internet ISPs). Quickly AOL turned to a flat-rate monthly amount (with a variety of subscription models).

I think publishers need to find a way to ENCOURAGE users to consume content, without charging them a "per-use" fee. It's detrimental to the behavior they are trying to encourage.

Myth | The Internet is anonymous part II

was just reading Martin Nisenholtz's address to the University of Pennsylvania, where he says:

"Facebook works because it is rooted in identity. It is an exercise of one’s ego online....This offers something important to publishers. For the first time, we can populate our site with users who come to us as themselves, not merely as anonymous screen names."

Makes me think of the topic i was writing about a couple of weeks ago: the enormous popularity of Facebook has helped the Internet grow up. What i mean is that the real-world authentication that Facebook has brought about has caused a step change in any site that is using Facebook Connect. So the Facebook ripple is continued to be felt in communities that are leveraging Facebook Connect. And all of these communities are enabling communities of users that are made up of authenticated, real-world users.

"grown-up"=the shift from anonymity to real identity.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-nyts-nisenholtzs-speech-the-importance-of-engagement/