Is the Free Web About to Expire?

The good old days of tons of something for pretty much nothing are coming to an end, and there's little we can do to stop it.

It's finally happening. The foundation upon which the Web is built—oodles and oodles of free content and services—is about to crumble. It hasn't happened yet, but the signs that it soon will are all there:

• A glut of free content from largely undifferentiated sources
• Premier providers struggling to maintain a steady flow of new content without the benefit of revenue
• A beyond-hard economy beating back every idea, initiative, and dollar that might help float said content on the free Web
• An uncooperative public that remains unwilling to pay for virtually anything online

A few weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the future of journalism. It described in stark terms the very real crisis that the print media (and its online counterparts) faces in the era of the free Web. Since the hearing was planned as a fact-finding event, no one expected concrete solutions to emerge. Still, it felt a little like scientists talking about global warming. They tell you it's happening and outline some steps we might take to mitigate it, but it's also clear that there's not a tremendous amount we can do to stop the larger trend. Similarly, the constant flow of free online content and the demise of print seem unstoppable. But I'm beginning to think they aren't.

Four years ago, I warned that the "something for nothing" business model was unsustainable. I even argued for taxing the Internet. This was not a popular idea, but I still think a small, monthly usage tax could help struggling local governments.

Had the economy not collapsed in late 2008, the free Web could have continued—but it wouldn't have lasted indefinitely. Anyway, as everyone knows, the economy's free fall has only marginally abated since late last year. In the painful reality of 2009, the scale (that is, the vast numbers of site visitors and page views) that used to sustain virtually every blog, news, and newspaper Web site—and even search engines—no longer seems to matter.

There's no question that news- and video-consumption sites, download destinations, and free services generate huge amounts of traffic and have traditionally been supported by ad revenue from big banner ads. For years, however, advertisers have bemoaned their abysmal ad click-through rates—the number of times people actually click on those ads. Contextual ads—think Google AdSense, where the text-only ads relate directly to whatever you're looking at on the page—put a soothing balm on the situation, but the irritating burn of consumer indifference is now starting to diminish the impact of that kind of ad as well.

Thing is, we have only ourselves to blame for this mess. The Web's incredibly low barrier to entry made it possible for anyone with a computer and a dream to launch a content Web site. These people created oodles of posts, stories, images, video, and so forth for their sites and then built an audience. At some point along the way, especially if they needed to pay for hosting costs or hire some help, they might have thought about a business model—but by then it was too late. They had devoted fan bases raised on the sweet milk of the free Web.

Recently, when Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch spoke of trying to pull back the free content on newspaper sites, most people laughed. (He quickly followed with a micro-payment plan for Wall Street Journal articles). Everyone assumes that the minute you kill one free content source, another will quickly flow in to fill the vacant space. This is true today, but something interesting and potentially scary is happening that may change this. Let's assume that Murdoch carries through with his micro-payment plans and that the newspapers actually do get their act together, convince Congress to loosen monopoly laws, and then work in concert to create a fixed online menu of content prices. With all this once-free content behind a pay gate, one would assume that smaller news sites and blogs—even citizen journalists—would fill the free gap. Not so fast. The safety nets provided by companies with deep pockets and the patience to let a platform build its revenue base are no more. Instead, many smaller sites are struggling to monetize their own little businesses before it's too late. Even major sites, with networks of blogs, are reporting huge losses. What incentive do any of them have to create free news content to fill the vacancy left by traditional news media?

This could be the old-school news media's chance.

Web site services, such as photo services, storage, finance sites, and the like, which have so far thrived on advertising, are also probably rethinking their business models. This will likely lead to some consolidation and certainly some pay-to-play models that we haven't see much of before. Murdoch-style micro-payments for things like content archives, which have till now failed, will see a resurgence. A new generation of consumers is proving that they're willing to pay in $1-to-$10 increments for things like music and applications. Might they not accept paying, say, a fraction of that for gated/archival content?

How about videos? Google has ads all over YouTube, but it's still not a huge ad revenue success (Google recently redesigned YouTube specifically to help boost ad revenue).

There will still be blogs, video, and news stories out there for the taking—no dinero required— but they could be in the minority. Over the next five years, I expect the Internet to become a more traditional marketplace. It'll resemble a vast mall, with millions of little storefronts that give you a taste of all manner of juicy content. However, to get the real-deal—the full monty, so to speak—you're gonna have to pay.

I'll miss you, free Web.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2346956,00.asp

Yeah, I, err, read the article. But you know what would be fun, y'know, amongst us article-readers, if, uhm, yeah, if we have a little game as to who can sum up the article in the fewest words possible.

lol. sounds like a good idea.

Go ahead be the first one.

A gentleman never goes first.

Thats why i let you go first, my parents raised me to let women go first ;)

I predict that my profile will now get about a thousand more hits.

youre welcome:)

It seems we are the only two interested in this article.

Errr, I kinda skimmed through it, but I got the impression that he's one of those "glass is half empty" guys.

The rich are always trying to get the masses to pay. Their scariest nightmare is everyone actually enjoying themselves without having to pay for it.

to sum up this article, basically they want to turn the internet in to what cable TV is today, if that happens it will be the death of the internet as we know it, small sites will disappear, all we will be left with will be corporate run sites.