There is the age old debate for publications whether to charge for content or make it free. Publications have thought they could make pay for content advertisement free and it would make up for the revenue that was lost from advertising. I believe it really depends on what type of content it is, how valuable that content it, is it readily available from other sources and how timely is that content.
I myself have never paid for content - other then by subscribing to a local paper, I have access to "breaking news" that I would not have had if I was not a subscriber. But that news we never earth shattering and there were other sources I could have got it from at relatively the same time.
As an example, I read an article in my marketing news that stated a study had been done on this and in some cases content can be paid for and it backed up my thoughts above. However It referenced The New York Times trial with this. They have a fee-based access to its editorial pages and had 225,000 subscribers. In 2007 they withdrew that fee. When that was removed they added 7.5 MILLION readers worldwide or a 64% jump in readership. They already had the highest unique vistor rate a month news content providers BEFORE that jum. That jump, just based on selling advertising - if they can fill their available online ad inventory should have generated MORE revenue that the subscriber base.
So if you ask me, free is still king for content, unless is it niche or not easily found through other sources.
Labels: free content, marketing, pay for content, web content, web strategy