{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Yesterday I discussed how The New York Times is looking to subscriptions or some form of paid content once again to help it weather not only a tough economy, but a dire financial situation brought about by declining print revenue.

Paid content can be a great business model but it's not always easy to pull off, especially when you've been giving your content away for free. After all, why would someone start paying for something you were giving them at no cost just a week ago?

ESPN has a model that the New York Times might want to consider.

It believes in paid content too but when it comes to its ESPN360 offering, an online version of its television channel, it's going about selling it to a much different audience: ISPs.

Instead of convincing consumers to pay for ESPN360, ESPN is taking a page from the cable television book and is selling ESPN360 to ISPs. If you're a consumer and want access to ESPN360, ESPN doesn't want your money. It wants you to help it convince your ISP that it's in your ISP's interest to pay ESPN so that ESPN360 will be available to all of its subscribers.

"It's just the point of view that we have: that as opposed to just selling speed, content is going to play a role in the high-speed data marketplace," ESPN EVP David Preschlack told Wired.

And ESPN isn't the only company buying into this notion. Disney (which owns ESPN) and the NFL are also taking a similar approach and are charging ISPs for access to their content. According to Wired, the MPAA is considering the model too.

What do ISPs think about this? They're not exactly turned off.

A Verizon spokesman stated, "it's a tremendous value-add — one more thing to help attract customers to our broadband service."

The problem, as I see it, however, is that while such a model might be viable for large media companies, it almost certainly isn't viable for smaller content creators. Which is fine. If ISPs believe that their subscribers will get value out of having access to certain online destinations, the model makes sense. In fact, I could see a major ISP paying The New York Times so that its subscribers have access to the company's content.

So is the new business of paid content selling that content to ISPs instead of consumers?

Wait just a minute. One has to wonder just how long it will be before there are too many players on the field.

While it's unknown how much ISPs are paying for content deals like ESPN360, if this model becomes widely-adopted by those at the top of the media industry food chain, the economics won't make sense for ISPs unless they pass the costs on to their subscribers.

Lest we forget, the cable television model doesn't always work so smoothly. There are fee disputes and in some cases, cable providers drop channels because they can't come to terms on those fees. So just because the cable television model 'works' doesn't mean that it's perfect nor does it mean that it's an ideal model for consumers.

While I think there is some room for it online (as ESPN and others might prove), the truth is that the online space is extremely competitive. While a cable customer might be very upset if he or she doesn't have ESPN, how many consumers are outraged that they don't have ESPN360? Probably not many because there is so much sports content online; the online world is so much broader than cable television. In essence, there might be a handful of cable channels catering to a specific market but there are usually thousands of websites catering to that market.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that the model ESPN and a handful of other major media companies are pursuing will amount to much in the overall scheme of things and at the end of the day I think there's something to be said about being able to convince consumers to pay for your service themselves. With its brand and reach, if ESPN can't convince consumers to pay for ESPN360, I think that pretty much says it all.

Patricio Robles

Published 6 February, 2009 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2380 more posts from this author

Comments (4)

Avatar-blank-50x50

Barry Schwartz

Interesting, wonder if this approach would work.  Seems so far away from how monetization works on the internet. 

over 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

K Singh, Director at Kronik Media

Paid content is set to be one of the key growth areas in 2009. Another area that will support paid content is the widespread availability and increase in mobile internet. Internet access on handheld devices will continue grow significantly in coming years. Last year has already witnessed an exponential increase in video sharing and media delivery via mobile devices. The coming year will not be different.

over 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Earn Money Online

Very nice.

about 7 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Online Businesses

Nice post . It would have been interesting those who into the “how to generate revenue”.

almost 7 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.