Digital News Users Not Buying

Reuters has bad news about subscriptions for on-line news. Michael Rosenwald, reporting for Columbia Journalism Review that only 11% of on-line digital news consumers actually pay for the services. Most digital consumers resent digital advertising and 47% block the ads with apps.

Other findings

• Ad blocking app and low subscription rates are bad news for legacy news sources and disruptive aggregators like Buzzfeed and Huffington Post.
• This is an international trend.
• Mobile devices are replacing tablets for news.
• Smaller screens limit advertising.
• Facebook is the go to Social Media source over Twitter.
• Publishers are migrating toward sponsored content.
• Sponsored content is meeting resistance. (40% ) 

Uncomfortable Questions

If people are unwilling to pay for news content on-line and if they're blocking ads, who's going to pay for the service? And, if the current funding model cannot sustain the providers, are these news sources going the same way as newspapers?

Hot Topic

Firewall issues abound for sponsored content. Journalistic standards call for a clear separation between sponsors and the content. Can sponsored content be trusted as news even with full disclosure of who is paying for the content? There's backlash already. According to 40% of the respondents to the Reuter's survey say they felt disappointment when they discovered the content they thought was news was actually sponsored content. To these users the articles certainly do not meet journalistic standards. Should it be considered advertising?

Sponsored content may not be as overt as commercials from the 40's and 50's, but there should be a certain amount of skepticism. Check out his ad for RJ Reynolds from the early days of Television...