The reader is not an advesary who needs to climb a wall to get to your website

Editor and Publisher is running a series of in-depth stories that go over and over and over again how newspapers can start charging readers for access to their online content.

Their opening paragraph is indicative of their misunderstanding of the situation and their small world view:

“On the day Michael Jackson died, the Los Angeles Times drew its heaviest Web traffic ever. When Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina admitted to an affair, The State of Columbia, S.C., had the best online numbers in its history. And the day before Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game in July, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch garnered more page views than ever before.”

These were three international stories that attracted readers from all over the world. And these newspapers weren’t providing information that wouldn’t be found in other places (either at the exact same time or very soon). Their websites were the beneficiaries of being in the right place at the right time.

But the article is based on a very different premise – “further proof that newspapers on the Web remain a top choice for breaking, local news”.

Honestly look at how the masses found these sites. It wasn’t by choice – it was by Google. People heard the news on CNN, Twitter or their email homepage that often touts salacious news (like MSNBC on Hotmail). They then performed a search, and near the top were the local papers who were covering this story as well or better than anyone else, something Google appreciates and knows because of the time a reader spends with the story after making the click.

The next question the article asks – “will readers pay for such material from these sites?” – was quickly dismissed. The discussion moved to how to get the money and how much money they could get from the millions who happened to click on their sites for a big story.

Only Janet Coats, editor of The Tampa Tribune, based he opinion on what she has seen in real life: “The whole idea of charging for the Web ‘is delusional. People have lost their minds. They need to have a cold cloth on their heads and go lay down for a while.’

“For Coats, a more aggressive approach to getting online ad revenue is the answer: ‘We have spent 15 years in this industry getting newsrooms to change. By God, they have changed. How much have things changed on the ad side?’”

Here. Here. How did Google create an ad network that is better connected to the local businessman than the local newspaper? Google won it by understanding you can sell a lot more pizza for 99 cents a slice than you can by selling it for $5 a slice.

Today Citilista believes that local advertisers are the key to a successful online venture because we offer local news that attracts local residents who shop, eat and play locally. The local businesses can’t afford an ad in a newspaper or cable or network. But they can afford to have a membership and a presence on a locally produced newspaper and social network that is a billboard both within the neighborhood and on the information super highway.

These executives forget that even before the Web 2.0 revolution newspaper circulations were dwindling and younger readers were not reading the paper. The only reason newspapers made money were with advertisers who had no where else to go.

“Readers seem to be willing to pay for Web content that is useful” the story continues – but no examples are given. What content are people paying for today – 99 cent iTunes songs? That’s about it.

There is so much out that that is already better than what newspapers are providing – and it’s free – Everyblock, Yelp! The list goes on and on.

But they say what about charging for high school sports, college football, the Miami Dolphins mobile apps, investigative news, local politics.

“I can’t see anyone subscribing to see our investigative work,” said Jim Witt, executive editor of the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram. “No one does it often enough to subscribe for it. Other investigative Web sites like ProPublica are popping up, and it doesn’t get as many hits as other things.”

Again he doesn’t know the issue. ProPublica doesn’t care about hits – they are a non-profit that runs their stories in existing newspapers!

For newspapers that do provide a public service, they need to think about the membership model. Public radio stations and TV stations don’t block their content from people who don’t pay. They ask listeners and watchers to support a product they believe in and then supplement that with advertising. If newspapers were to embrace this model – along with embracing the bloggers who work for free covering their interest areas better than most reporters ever did – there may be a place for many of the players in old media.