"Worldwide Leader" Proves Nickname Applies Outside of Just Sports

As a writer for Business Insider I occasionally contribute to their "Wire" vertical, which covers the media business. Most of their coverage comes from linking out--or adding analysis (value) to a story broken by another, larger outlet. And anything sports related, which almost always encompasses ESPN, is my responsibility.

I tend to poke fun at ESPN in that snarky tone that bloggers love, and the mainstream media loves to hate. It seems as though every time I mention ESPN I can't help but rip the worldwide leader for something: this summer, cross-promotion and the LeBron debacle have been the biggest culprits. Few will disagree that both those complaints are valid.

But anyone who knows me, knows I couldn't live without ESPN, and yesterday, after getting my ritual insult out of the way, I finally said something nice:

Those circulation numbers are pretty impressive and ESPN can thank the foresight of its executives for that success. ESPN has long charged for premium "Insider" content, and has linked that subscription with the magazine. Subscribers to either one get access to the other for free. Slowly, other media outlets are beginning to realize this is the way to go.

Look, it's clear that an online paywall is inevitable.


Flickr via kevindooley


Media outlets can't keep giving away content for free, not only because, well, they should charge, but also because free content is less valuable to advertisers. Advertisers want to know that people who visit the page they advertise on actually want to be there. That's why they pay significantly more for print advertisements.

By bundling ESPN Insider and ESPN the magazine, the Worldwide Leader now has two distinct outlets that garner a lot of traffic and are appealing to advertisers because of the paywall. Let's say a user only signed up for ESPN Insider and couldn't care less about the magazine. You're telling me that guy isn't going to open the magazine when it comes in the mail every other week? And once he does, advertisers already know that he loves sports, and enjoys ESPN's coverage so he's easily engaged. Conversely by mentioning ESPN Insider at the end of every magazine article, ESPN is getting as many people to activate their free accounts as possible. Again, once those users log on advertisers know what they're getting. See? There's a reason for all that annoying cross-promotion.

ESPN does two other things correctly here. First, they have a significant quantity of free content online so that they don't completely alienate non-payers. Second, they put out enough premium content that distinguishes itself enough from the free stuff to be worth paying for.

Other media outlets need to learn from this example. The New York Times should keep much of its international and domestic news free, along with most of its blogs, while putting a paywall behind columnists and its more unique content. Namely, its Arts and Style sections. Then they need to have different options at different pricepoints for bundling it with the print product.

Of course, the naysayers argue that it will never work. Too many people are too accustomed to free news to begin paying for it now, they say. Those people will just jump to whatever site keeps their news free.

But if many of the larger news organizations begin implementing a paywall, sources of free news will be scarce. Business Insider, for example, would have a lot less to write about if its posts linking out to other content were useless to all readers that don't subscribe to the publication being sourced. Obviously, there will also be more limits on syndicating paid content.

Eventually, just as we have for centuries, people will have to choose what media is most important to them, pony up, and pay for it. The free ride was fun while it lasted, but it's coming to an end. A new era is under way.

And the Worldwide Leader is leading the charge.