Almost all media types have been successfully transformed into a digital business model where information goods are combined, for example to create a subscription-based business model: Netflix for television and movies; Spotify for music. However, there is one massive market where this has not been big yet: quality journalism articles.
It seems like news is now a commodity: there are numerous websites that provide free news to read. But here we are talking about in-depth investigative articles: not the what, but the why. Even though subscription numbers have been declining for basically every newspaper, there is still a massive amount of people willing to pay for such quality content. Thus, the question question quickly arises: why is there no successful “Netflix for news” yet?
There are those that are trying. For example, there is Scribd, now combining magazines and books with articles from – among other newspapers – the New York Times, Financial Times and the Guardian, full access for $9 per month¹. Blendle has been trying the same in Europe and recently in the USA as well². Their subscription numbers are growing, but not close to a pace that shows that they are really going to shake up the industry. Is this because the potential market for such a service is simply not big enough, or something else?
It may be that the exposure of the Scribd and Blendle platforms is not big enough. A platform is as powerful as the network it has. From that perspective, it would be more meaningful if one of the big 5 tech companies would start having an interest in the market of quality journalism. In that light, it is a very interesting development that Apple is currently working on a service that combines most major American newspapers in their own subscription service. Apple can use their massive user base to spread the new service, and may integrate it into their existing “News” app. Moreover, Apple could bundle this service with its other subscription offerings (Apple Music, potentially a video streaming service) to create a “supersized subscription offering³.” Time will tell whether the strength of a platform is the missing link for a successful journalism platform, or that there are other issues that are the key.
I think it is very astonishing that nothing comparable to Netflix yet exists for journalism given the success Netflix and Spotify have in the movie and music industry respectively. I asked myself what the main reasons for that are and the most important one, from my view, you already mentioned. Since the internet offers free access to numerous news websites for free hinders consumers’ willingness to subscribe to a news platform. Although one can argue that free access to movies, videos or music also existed before Netflix or Spotify, I strongly believe that the quality is the determining difference. Before Netflix one could not find high quality blockbusters for free online and before Spotify the options to download music in high quality to affordable prices were also very limited. But for journalism most publishers offer some amount in high quality and full length for free (e.g. Harvard Business Review with 3 articles). If one wants to find an interesting article regarding a specific topic, within 5 minutes one can easily do so without giving up on quality attributes. However, I agree with you that a big hub player might be able to succeed also in the Journalism industry with a platform offering a “supersized subscription” thereby taking further advantage of network effects. It will be interesting to observe which of the big hub firms wins this “race”.