The International Journal on Media Management, 14:227250, 2012

Copyright Institute for Media and Communications Management

ISSN: 1424-1277 print/1424-1250 online
DOI: 10.1080/14241277.2012.657284

Paying for What? How Much? And Why (Not)?

Predictors of Paying Intent for Multiplatform
Newspapers
HSIANG IRIS CHYI
University of Texas at Austin, USA

Propelled by the recent economic recession that caused substantial declines in advertising revenue, some major newspapers have
renewed their efforts to find alternative revenue models. This
renewed interest in paid content strategy triggered another round
of debates on the viability of the paywall. To address the recurring
industry debate, this study, based on a national survey of 767 U.S.
online adults, systematically evaluated users paying intent for different newspaper formats, the amount they are willing to pay, as
well as users responses to various payment models being considered by the industry. Results showed the print edition outperforms
other formats (Web & apps) in terms of usage, preference, and
paying intent; and is perceived as the most valuable platform.
Paying intent for the online formats (Web & apps) was weak, and so
was peoples response to each of the 6 payment models under study.
Therefore, how users are charged does not make much differencewhether they are charged does. The analysis also identified
the predictors of paying intent for newspaper formats and different
payment models. Although multiplatform news delivery has become
a reality, paying intent for digital news content remains elusive.
The relatively short history of online news publishing has seen several
rounds of debates on whether newspapers should charge for online news
access (American Press Institute, 2009; Herbert & Thurman, 2007; Outing,
2002). Although most news sites rely on advertising revenue and offer
content for free, some newspapers (e.g., The New York Times) have demonstrated a sustained interest in developing paid content strategies. Propelled
Address correspondence to Hsiang Iris Chyi, School of Journalism, University of Texas at
Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton (A1000), Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: chyi@mail.utexas.edu
227

228

H. I. Chyi

by the recent economic recession that caused substantial declines in advertising revenue (Newspaper Association of America, 2011), several major
newspapers1 have renewed their efforts to find alternative revenue models
by implementing paywall plans in various forms.
The renewed interest in paid content strategy triggered another round
of debates among media critics and newspaper practitioners (Coddington,
2010). As usual, some argue content should be paid for, whereas others
remain skeptical about the paywall (Jarvis, 2010). The intensified debate
indicates the significance of the subject matter as it pertains to the value
of news and the future of journalism, but the quick facts and reasoning
often seen in online commentaries and trade publications often failed to
contextualize the issue at hand. For one thing, most newspapers manage a
cross-media product portfolio (Picard, 2005), offering products in multiple
formats (print, Web, and apps for mobile devices) that are related goods
for which the demand is interdependent on one another. Thus, a systematic
examination that takes into account the overall product portfolio is essential.
This study, based on a national survey of United States online adults,
seeks to fill the gap by examining users paying intent for different newspaper formats (print, Web, and apps), how much they are willing to pay, as well
as users response to various payment models under consideration by the
newspaper industry. The analysis goes beyond descriptive data to uncover
the predictors underlying paying intent, as well as the relative importance of
price in determining consumer choice. The goal here is to contribute a timely
and systematic examination on paying intent for multiplatform newspapers
to this long-term industry debate.

REVENUE MODELS FOR ONLINE NEWS

The search for a viable business model (or revenue stream) is nearly as long
as the newspaper industrys Web operations, which began in the mid-1990s.
Having experimented with the subscription model, the advertising model,
the transactional model, and the bundled model (Mings & White, 2000), the
industry realizes that none generate sufficient revenue.
During the first 5-year period of online news delivery (19962000),
most newspapers overcame the fear that offering a free online edition might
erode their print subscriber base and adopted the advertising model, seeking eyeballs more than anything else. A 1999 survey of 64 U.S. online
newspaper publishers reported that nearly 80% of the newspaper sites generated revenue from online advertising. Only 3% were subscription-based,
and most said it would be unlikely or very unlikely to charge for online
news access in the near future (Chyi & Sylvie, 2001). At this stage, The Wall
Street Journal stood out as a unique, exceptional case because its interactive
edition successfully stabilized a subscription modelby the Fall of 1998, it

Predictors of Paying Intent

229

had generated 150,000 online-only readers who paid a $49 annual subscription fee (for a detailed account of its paid content model, see Steinbock,
2000).
In 2000, the economic downturn triggered massive layoffs and consolidations in online news organizations all over the world. Soon after,
discussion about the subscription model took off. Many general-interest news
publishers argued it was time to start charging for the valuable information
they offered online (Outing, 2002). However, disappointing results came
back from market and academic research with little evidence suggesting that
users were willing to pay for online news. The sign-up rate for fee-based
online newspapers was as low as 0.2% to 2.6% of the print circulation, and
71% of news site users would go somewhere else because there were so
many free sites available (Borrell Associates, 2001). A 2002 consumer survey
showed 70% of online adults could not understand why anyone would pay
for content online (Jupiter Media Metrix, 2003). A 2002 survey of Hong Kong
residents also documented a very unenthusiastic response to paid content
only 2.5% of online news users subscribed to any of the four fee-based
online news services (Chyi, 2005). Overall, many newspapers generated less
than $5 in online revenue per unit of circulation (Borrell Associates, 2003).
As a result, the idea that content must be free unless it is very specialized (Carlson, 2003, p. 54) and it is impossible to charge for general news
content (Herbert & Thurman, 2007, p. 215) became the industry consensus.
Media scholars, thus, began to ask whether online media can survive without
a viable model and whether there is value to maintaining digital media when
profitability is not achievable (Kawamoto, 2003). However, the experiment
with the subscription model continued.
In September 2005, The New York Times launched its paid service
TimesSelect online. At the end of 2006, it had 336,000 subscribers, of
which about 45% paid $49.95 per year to access the content (Project for
Excellence in Journalism, 2006).2 However, in September 2007, the Times
dropped TimesSelect, and media critic Jeff Jarvis (2007) commented, With
it [TimesSelect] goes any hope of charging for content online. Content is
now and forever free (para. 1). Only a handful of sizable newspapers
have stayed with the subscription model (Prez-Pea, 2009)they are either
financial news and information providers, such as The Wall Street Journal
and The Financial Times3 , or newspapers in local markets, such as The
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Hussman, 2007) and The Albuquerque Journal
(Friedman, 2003; Windsor, 2009).
However, another economic downturn changed many newspaper publishers views. The 2009 newspaper crisis (Chyi, Lewis, & Zheng, 2012)
once again resurrected the free vs. fee debate within the industry (Kinsley,
2009)this time with a slightly different terminology (the paywall) and
a much stronger determination. A 2009 survey of newspaper executives
showed that nearly 60% of respondents were considering paid content

230

H. I. Chyi

strategies. This was a dramatic change, says the report, considering that 90%
of the responding papers did not charge for content, and only 3% had a
subscription-only site at the time of the survey (American Press Institute,
2009).
In the Summer of 2010, two London newspapers, The Times and the
Sunday Times, implemented a paywall plan and reportedly lost 90% of their
online traffic almost immediately (Halliday, 2010). In October 2010, Newsday,
the Long Island daily, also placed its Web edition behind a paywall. Three
months later, only 35 people had signed up to pay $5 per week to get access
to newsday.com (Koblin, 2011).4 On March 8, 2011, The Dallas Morning
News, the fifth largest metro newspaper in the United States, started charging
online users $16.95 per month for a digital package that includes Web and
apps (Doctor, 2011b). A few weeks later, The New York Times implemented
a metered model, requiring online users who view more than 20 articles per
month to become a subscriber, paying either $15, $20, or $35 per month
(Sulzberger, 2011). Since September 2011, the two Philadelphia newspapers
TM
have been offering discounted Android tablets bundled with a 1- or 2year contract for its news apps (Seize the Future, 2011). This time, more
online news suppliers are experimenting with more diverse paid content
strategies.
There are also new research findings from the demand side. Nielsen
surveyed more than 27,000 consumers in 52 countries and reported that
almost 80% of the global consumers would no longer use a Web site that
charges. Some 71% say online content of any kind will have to be considerably better than what is currently free before they will pay for it (Nielsen,
2010). Given newspaper publishers enthusiasm for paid content and users
reluctance against it, a timely examination of paying intent is necessary. This
study systematically examines paying intent for different newspaper formats
and seeks to uncover predictors determining paying intent.

ECONOMICS OF PAID CONTENT

Paying Intent for Newspaper Formats
One managerial challenge associated with a cross-media product portfolio is
that different products require different revenue models that are not always
compatible with each other. As a result, most newspapers have been struggling with the interaction between the fee-based model of their print product
and the free model of their Web offerings. In addition, print newspaper
demand is known for being very insensitive to price change (Lewis, 1995).
Yet, online news is subject to an extremely high degree of price elasticity5 ,
suggesting that switching from free to fee would result in a substantial
decline in the quantity demanded for the online content. For example, a
survey on U.S. newspaper publishers reported that the number of online

Predictors of Paying Intent

231

subscriptions is typically 1% to 3% of print circulation, regardless of price

(American Press Institute, 2009). According to McDowell (2011), price sensitivity and excessive capacity are symptoms reflecting the brand management
crisis facing the newspaper industry (especially its online operation). Indeed,
many people are still paying for print newspapers but charging anything for
online content has proven difficult.
Today, as major newspaper companies deliver news through multiple
platforms, it is essential to examine paying intent for various newspaper
formats. Regarding what factors determine paying intent, based on Schwer
and Daneshvarys (1995) statistical approach, Chyi (2005) conducted regression analyses to examine the potential predictors of paying intent for online
news. The predictors examined included demographics (gender, age, education, and income), media use (TV, newspaper, and Web use), and preference
for the online/print format.6 News interest (i.e., the degree to which people enjoy keeping up with the news) is also a potential predictor because
it was found to have a strong influence on use of (Chyi & Yang, 2009),
as well as emotional attachment to (Chyi & Yang, 2012) online and print
news. Therefore, building on previous research, this study examines whether
demographics, news interest, and media use affect paying intent for each
newspaper format, addressing the following research question:
RQ1: To what extent are people likely to pay for different newspaper formats
(print, Web, and apps)? What factors predict paying intent for each format?

Willingness to Pay (WTP)

WTP refers to the maximum amount one is willing to pay for a product, which is the inevitable outcome and ultimate measure of competition
(McDowell, 2011). In the media market, content is offered either for free
(such as broadcast TV and radio) or for a fee (such as cable TV and books).
In the former case, there is no need to assess WTP. In the latter case,
WTP is usually taken for granted. A review of media economics literature
found a study on WTP for Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) using contingent valuation methodssurvey respondents were asked what was the most
they would be willing to pay each year to keep PBS in town (Schwer &
Daneshvary, 1995).
The emergence of digital content requires empirical examinations of
WTP to determine the optimal pricing level. A survey of 118 newspaper publishers reported a wide range of online subscription charges (from
$1$27.50 per month), suggesting that convenience pricing as opposed to
rigorous WTP analysis is in play (American Press Institute, 2009).
Because goods are what are thought of as goods (Lancaster, 1966,
p. 132), it is essential to examine users evaluation of digital content.

232

H. I. Chyi

Therefore, this study seeks to examine WTP for different newspaper formats,
addressing the following research question:
RQ2: How much are people willing to pay for different newspaper formats
(print, Web, and apps)?

Newspaper Attributes: Format and Price

Because traditional newspapers have a pre-determined price, previous
research on newspaper consumption tended to take that price for granted.
Yet, as newspapers develop new pricing strategies for their multiplatform
products, they must identify the optimal price-format combination that
would appeal to consumers.
Consumers make decisions to maximize utility (Hoskins, McFadyen, &
Finn, 2004), which is often operationalized as satisfaction. Yet, user satisfaction remains an understudied subject in media research (Palmgreen,
1984; Tamborini, Bowman, Eden, Grizzard, & Organ, 2010). Attribute theory in consumer psychology suggests that consumers derive utility not from
the products themselves but from the characteristics or attributes provided
by the products (Hoskins et al., 2004, p. 74). This approach, rooted in
multi-attribute models originally proposed by Rosenberg (1956) and Fishbein
(1967) and tested and adapted by a large number of empirical studies
(Jaccard, Brinberg, & Ackerman, 1986; Wilkie & Pessemier, 1973), allows
researchers to examine consumer attitudes toward not just one product, but
a group of products that are preference alternatives (Bass & Talarzyk, 1972).
Based on the multi-attribute paradigm, this study re-conceptualizes a
multiplatform newspaper as a multi-attribute product and incorporates price
and format as two major attributes.7 To determine the relative importance of
these two attributes, this study introduces a conjoint analysis approach to the
study of multiplatform newspaper consumption.
Conjoint analysis, one of the most widely used statistical methods in
marketing research, is an ideal analytical tool to examine how potential
consumers assign relative importance to different attributes that make up
a product or service. It estimates the structure of consumers preferences
through their evaluations of product alternatives pre-specified in terms of levels of different attributes (Green & Srinivasan, 1978, 1990). Such information
helps forecast what the likely acceptance of a product would be if brought
to market (Sawtooth Software, 2008). In other words, conjoint analysis helps
determine the optimal features for a product by addressing important questions such as these: What is really important to consumers when they make
consumption decisions? How important are the various features in a product
to a consumer (Chakrapani, 2004)?
Conjoint analysis typically includes price as a product attribute. Such an
approach is valuable here because the effect of price on consumer choice

Predictors of Paying Intent

233

can be estimated without directly measuring WTP. This would generate more
realistic results because potential consumers are asked to evaluate a set of
product alternatives defined by different levels of attributes as they would
when making real decisions.8 Therefore, through a conjoint analysis, this
study addresses the following research question:
RQ3: What is the relative importance of format and price when people
choose between different news packages?

Effectiveness of Payment Models

A range of payment models exist. A Nielsen survey examined global consumers preference between full service subscriptions and micropayments,
reporting that 42% of the respondents in North America favored the latter
(Nielsen, 2010). Going beyond the full service and micropayment dichotomy,
this study seeks to explore a much wider range of payment models currently
being considered by newspaper companies:
1. Free or discounted hardware with contracts for content: Like the contractbased service plan often seen in the telecommunication industry, this type
of package involves a free or heavily discounted portable device (e.g., an
iPad ) with a long-term contract for content access.9
2. Micropayment: Having triggered a debate among advocates (Isaacson,
2009) and opponents (Etheridge, 2009; Kinsley, 2009; Shirky, 2003), this
model allows newspaper sites to charge users on a pay per article basis.
3. Tiered (or metered) system: As implemented by The New York Times, the
tiered model gives users free access to a certain number of articles (e.g.,
first 20 articles per month) and starts charging beyond the set number.
4. Day pass: Users are charged only on the days when they access the content. Some telecommunication service providers (e.g., T-Mobile ) provide
this option for pre-paid customers.
5. Customized content: The build your own, mix and match menu allows
each user to select content by topic (e.g., sports, business, local news,
etc.).10
6. Free online access for print subscribers: Print subscribers are granted free
online access.11
To examine users response to each of these payment models, this study
addresses the following research question:
RQ4: How do they respond to various payment models currently considered
by the newspaper industry? What factors predict paying intent for each
model?

234

H. I. Chyi

METHOD
A Web-based survey of 767 randomly selected adults (18+ years old)
was conducted during August 3 through 6, 2010 to examine U.S. Internet
users consumption of and attitudes toward online and traditional news
media.

Sample
The sample was provided by Survey Sampling International (SSI), a research
firm specializing in survey research with 30+ years of experience. SSIs North
American online panel consists of more than 1.4 million active households.12
The panelists were recruited from Web communities, databases, mailing
lists, or other collections that have opted-in to participate in online survey
research. SSI seeks to reach both highly visible and hard-to-reach groups on
the Internet, such as ethnic minorities, young people, and seniors, to ensure
that the sample is representative of the U.S. online population (SSI, 2008).
SSI administers surveys by sending e-mail notifications to its panelists, who
were eligible to receive incentives for participation.
Online panel surveys have increased dramatically during the last decade
because of obvious benefits such as the speed, the elimination of interviewer
bias, and lower cost (Fisher, 2005). Compared with random digit dialing,
online surveys allow respondents to choose when and where to complete
the survey, lowering the intrusiveness associated with telephone surveys
and the social desirability effect, but response rates tend to be low (Fisher,
2005).
A random sample of panelists was selected and invited to participate
in the study. The response rate was 4%. This represents a low, but not
unusual response rate for an online survey (Baker, 2010). Empirical studies
gauging the effect of low response rates on telephone survey results found
no statistically distinguishable differences in the vast majority of comparable
items, suggesting non-response does not seriously threaten the quality of
estimates (Keeter, Kennedy, Dimock, Best, & Craighill, 2006; Keeter, Miller,
Kohut, Groves, & Presser, 2000). In this study, the overall sample size
767 respondentsplays a critical role in the stability of the findings as larger
sample sizes tend to produce more reliable sample estimates (Shih & Fan,
2009).
Comparing the survey sample with the U.S. Internet population in terms
of gender, age, income, and education, the author found the sample overrepresented females and those in the lower income categories. To ensure
that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely match the demographic characteristics of the Internet population in the United States, this
study weighted the data to gender and income. The weighted sample size
is 776.

Predictors of Paying Intent

235

Survey Instrument
The survey, which took an average of 10 min to complete, focused on the
use of, attitudes toward, and paying intent for traditional and online media.
The questionnaire was developed according to the results of a focus group
of college students, as well as consultations with industry professionals.
To enhance the validity and reliability of the survey, revisions were made
based on several rounds of pretests.
Paying intent for each of the three newspaper formats (i.e., print, Web
site, and news applications [apps]) was measured by asking this question:
Some newspapers are considering charging users for content online in
the near future. How likely is it that you personally would pay for news
and information on the following platforms? (1 is Very unlikely and 5 is
Very likely)

WTP (in dollar amount) for each of the three newspaper formats was
measured by this question:
Assume for a moment that your favorite newspaper is no longer free
anywhere (in print or online). Given this scenario, how much would you
be willing to pay for your favorite newspaper on the following platforms
simultaneously? (You may choose to pay for one, some, or all platforms
as you wish.) (If youre not willing to pay anything, just put 0.)
Website edition (via the computer or mobile devices): $___ per month
News applications (via mobile devices): $___ per application
Print edition: $___ per month

To present the most realistic pricing scheme being considered by the

newspaper industry, this study operationalized each of the six aforementioned payment models based on consultations with industry professionals,
as well as information gathered from trade journals.13 Paying intent for
different paying models was measured by this question:
Assume for a moment that your favorite newspaper is no longer free
anywhere (in print or online). Given this scenario, how likely is it that
you would pay for each of the following? (1 is Very unlikely and 5 is
Very likely)
1) A free iPad with a 2-year subscription at $30/month (i.e., $720 for
2 years) that covers all content in all ELECTRONIC formats.
2) Buy the article once, no strings attached at $0.19 per article in all
ELECTRONIC formats.

236

H. I. Chyi

3) First 10 articles free per week. $0.99 for each additional article in all
ELECTRONIC formats.
4) Buy a day pass, no strings attached at $0.99/day in all ELECTRONIC
formats.
5) A build your own, mix and match subscription menu that covers all ELECTRONIC formats. Content is self-selected by topic (e.g.,
sports + business + local news, etc., or technology + environmental news + education news, etc.). Price: $0.99 per content topic per
month.
6) Monthly subscription that covers all PRINT and ELECTRONIC formats.
Price: $33 per month

News interest was measured by this question:

In general, how much do you enjoy keeping up with the news? (1 is Not
at all and 5 is A lot).

Print newspaper/online news/TV news use was measured by this question:

About how much time did you spend reading (print) newspapers/getting
news online/watching TV news (cable and satellite included) yesterday?

Data Analysis
Regression analysis. Because paying intent was measured at the interval
level, OLS multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the predictors of paying intent for three newspaper formats and six payment models
on the other things being equal basis. Based on the conceptual framework,
the predictor variables included demographics (age, gender, education, and
income), news interest, and news use (print newspaper, online news, and
TV news).
Conjoint analysis. The relative importance of format and price was measured by a conjoint analysis. Due to the exploratory nature of the test, a
subsample consisting of 202 randomly selected respondents was asked this
question:
Imagine your favorite newspaper offers the following news packages.
Among the following choices, which would you prefer?

The following are two examples of product profiles used in the study:
These product profiles were randomly generated as the combination of the
following two attributes:

237

Predictors of Paying Intent

Profile 1

Profile 2

Format: Print edition

Price: $15 per month

Format: Web edition

Price: $10 per month

1. Format (3 levels): print edition, Web edition, and both print and Web
editions.
2. Price (4 levels): $5 per month, $10 per month, $15 per month, and $20 per
month.
The format attribute did not include apps because the penetration rate
of newspaper apps was extremely low at the time of the study.14 When
most respondents had no experience of using a newspaper app on a mobile
device, adding the option would cause confusion and sacrifice the validity
of the analysis. In addition, the price attribute did not include $0 because the
goal of the study is to examine the effect of the paywall.
Each respondent compared 12 pairs of product profiles, and the data
were analyzed with Sawtooths SSI Web software (Sawtooth Software, 2010).

RESULTS
Table 1 compares weighted and unweighted sample distributions to population parameters on key demographic variables. The weighted sample is
reasonably representative of the U.S. Internet population.
This study first examined the extent to which Internet users access
their local newspapers in different formats. When asked, In what format(s)
do you access your local newspaper(s) regularly, 64% of the respondents
reported accessing their local paper in print format, 31.5% said they visited
the newspapers Web site, 7.5% said through Facebook , 3.3% said through
Twitter, and only 2.9% said through a news application (app)that is, more
Internet users access their local paper in print as opposed to online by a
2:1 margin.
As for which format is the preferred format, 58.3% of the respondents
indicated that their favorite format is the print edition, followed by the
Web edition (21.5%). Very few respondents chose Facebook (3.8%), Twitter
(2.1%), or apps (1.8%) as their favorite formats.
RQ1 asked to what extent people are likely to pay for different formats.
Table 2 presents the results. On a 5-point scale, paying intent for the print
format is the highest (2.7, SD = 1.6), followed by the Web edition (1.9, SD =
1.3) and news apps (1.6, SD = 1.1).

238

H. I. Chyi

TABLE 1 A Comparison of the Sample and the U.S. Internet Population

Internet Populationa
(%)

Unweighted Sample
(%)

Weighted Sample
(%)

Gender
Male
Female

48.4
51.6

35.7
64.3

50.7
49.3

Age
1834
3554
55+

33.0
41.2
25.8

29.9
45.2
24.9

28.8
44.6
26.6

Income
< $50,000
$50,000$74,999
$75,000$149,999
$150,000+

36.6
21.0
30.7
11.7

64.3
18.0
14.7
3.0

35.8
20.9
31.0
12.4

40.2

35.3

28.0

29.8
30.0

33.4
31.3

31.3
40.7

223,672,000

767

776

Variable

Education
Did not attend
college
Attended college
Graduated
college+
n
a

Source: Mediamark Research & Intelligence data published by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on adults
18+ years old with Internet access as of Fall 2008.

TABLE 2 Frequencies and Predictors of Paying Intent for Three Newspaper Formats
Variable
Paying Intenta
1 Very unlikely
2
3
4
5 Very likely
M
SD
n
Predictorsb
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Income
News interest
Print newspaper
use
Online news use
TV news use
Model
Adjusted R 2
a

Print

Apps

41.2
7.9
17.9
11.0
22.0
2.7
1.6
776

60.0
12.5
15.0
6.2
6.4
1.9
1.3
776

70.1
10.4
11.3
4.2
4.0
1.6
1.1
776

.062
.059
.071
.025
.237
.247

.108
.223
.012
.007
.132
.068

.084
.338
.019
.041
.086
.131

.127
.078
F(8, 745) = 16.80,
p < .001
.144

.152
.084
F(8, 745) = 16.60,
p < .001
.142

.112
.091
F(8, 745) = 23.20,
p < .001
.191

Cell entries are percentages.

Cell entries are betas.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

b

Web

239

Predictors of Paying Intent

Regarding the predictors of paying intent for these three formats, none
of the demographic variables have an influence on the likelihood of paying
for a print newspaper, suggesting WTP for print newspapers is not restricted
to specific demographic groups. In contrast, gender and especially age have
an influence on WTP for the Web edition or apps. Being male and younger
are both positively associated with paying intent for these two online formats.
News interest is unsurprisingly a positive predictor of paying intent for
all three formats. News media use (i.e., print newspaper use, online news
use, and TV news use), in most cases, are positively associated with paying
intent. The only exception is that online news use has a negative impact on
paying intent for print newspapers ( = .127, p < .01), suggesting that
the free online news offerings may negatively affect print readership. This
provides one plausible justification for implementing the paywall plan for
online content.
RQ2 sought to investigate exactly how much people are willing to pay
for these formats. Respondents were asked to specify the dollar amount they
are willing to pay simultaneously for the print edition, the Web site edition,
and apps. Table 3 presents the results. Again, the results suggested that WTP
for the print format is the highest. People are willing for pay more for the
print newspaper ($7.7), followed by the Web edition ($3.1), and then by
apps ($1.5).
RQ3 sought to examine the relative importance of format and price
when people make purchase decisions between alternative news packages.
Table 4 presents the results of the conjoint analysis. The partworths (or
conjoint utilities) represent the utility derived for each level of each attribute
(Chakrapani, 2004). The Web-only edition received a negative utility value
of 1.89, indicating that it is the least preferred level, and the combined
format (both print and Web) is the most preferred (1.40).15 In terms of
price, the utility decreases as price increases. The relative importance of an
attribute is the range of utilities for the attribute as the percentage of the
total of all ranges across all attributes (Chakrapani, 2004). Results showed
that price (ranging from $5$20) has a much greater influence on preference
TABLE 3 How Much People Are Willing to Pay for Their Favorite
Newspaper in Three Formats
Variable

Print

Web

Apps

Dollar amount
$0
$15
$610
$11 or more
M
SD

30.2
26.1
20.3
23.4
$7.7
8.1

%
59.8
28.6
7.5
4.1
$3.1
7.8

76.1
18.9
3.2
1.8
$1.5
4.6

Note. N = 776.

240

H. I. Chyi
TABLE 4 Partworths and Relative Importance of Format and Price
Attribute

Level

Description

Partworth

1
2
3

Web edition
Print edition
Both print and Web

1.89
0.49
1.40

1
2
3
4

$5
$10
$15
$20

4.92
1.57
1.35
5.14

Format

Price

Relative
Importance
24.6%

75.4%

Note. N = 202.

(relative importance = 75.4%) over newspaper format (relative importance =

24.6%).
RQ4 sought to examine how people respond to the six different payment models. Table 5 presents the results. On a 5-point scale, the mean
ranges from 1.6 to 2.0, suggesting that paying intent is low across all six
payment models.
Multiple regression analyses identified the predictors of paying intent
for each model. Age is negatively associated with paying intent, and news
interest is a positive predictor across all six models. Among the six payment
models, Models 2 through 5 share very similar sets of predictors (age, news
interest, and online news use), and Model 6 (free access for print subscribers)
stands out for two reasons: (a) This is the only model where gender (being
female) is positively associated with paying intent ( = .082, p < .05), and
(b) this is the only model where income is a positive predictor ( = .090,
p < .05).

DISCUSSION
As newspaper companies continued experimenting with paywall plans
for their multiplatform content, this study examined paying intent for
multiple formats (print, Web, and apps) simultaneously. The findings reconfirmed one of the most disappointing results of the newspaper industrys
experiment with online news deliverythe vast majority of users seemed
reluctant to pay for content online. In sum, multiplatform news delivery has
become a reality, but paying intent for multiplatform news content remains
elusive.
Among all newspaper formats, the print edition outperformed the other
formats on usage, preference, as well as paying intent. Respondents, who
were Internet users, indicated that they were more likely to pay for the print
edition and were willing to pay significantly more for the print edition than

241

.103

.104

F(8, 745) =
12.00, p < .001

.131

.123
.101

.063
.207
.004
.041
.159
.064

63.8
12.0
12.6
6.1
5.5
1.8
1.2
776

4 (Day Pass)

.102

F(8, 745) =
11.70, p < .001

Model

F(8, 745) =
15.20, p < .001

.172
.034

.158
.005

.035
.025
F(8, 745) =
11.80, p < .001

.026
.270
.088
.058
.103
.035

66.6
6.6
15.2
5.4
6.2
1.8
1.2
776

3 (Tiered
System)

.059
.238
.042
.073
.108
.016

69.1
11.5
11.2
5.0
3.3
1.6
1.1
776

2 (Pay Per
Article)

.052
.291
.057
.055
.153
.080

73.3
8.8
8.5
4.7
4.7
1.6
1.1
776

1 (Free iPad )

Cell entries are percentages.

Cell entries are betas.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Adjusted R 2

Model

Paying Intenta
1 Very unlikely
2
3
4
5 Very likely
M
SD
n
Predictorsb
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Income
News interest
Print newspaper
use
Online news use
TV news use

Variable

TABLE 5 Paying Intent Across Six Payment Models

.129

F(8, 745) =
15.00, p < .001

.170
.094

.058
.253
.026
.025
.099
.107

63.0
10.5
13.4
6.1
6.9
1.8
1.3
776

5 (Customized
Topics)

.132

F(8, 745) =
15.40, p < .001

.019
.052

.082
.103
.002
.090
.197
.283

57.7
11.0
15.0
7.7
8.5
2.0
1.3
776

6 (Free for
Print Users)

242

H. I. Chyi

for the Web edition and apps. In contrast, paying intent for the online formats (Web and apps) was weak, and so was peoples response to the six
variations of payment models for online news access. It is known that the
print edition, despite the shrinking readership, remains the core product for
local newspapers in terms of usage (Chyi & Lewis, 2009; Langeveld, 2010)
and advertising revenue (Newspaper Association of America, 2011). This
study further demonstrated that the print edition would remain the dominant format even in the context of the subscription modelbecause paying
intent translates into subscription revenue. In other words, the paywall is not
going to generate sufficient digital circulation income to challenge the print
editions importance as the primary revenue source.
A closer look at the predictors of paying intent showed that different
factors drive paying intent for different formats. For example, age and, to a
lesser extent, gender, have an influence on the likelihood of paying for Web
and apps, but no demographic variables predict paying intent for print. Also,
considering the higher level of paying intent for print, this suggests that the
online population in general finds the idea of paying for a print newspaper
acceptable. Newer formats, on the other hand, are relatively restricted in
terms of which demographic groups (i.e., males and younger people) would
be willing to pay.
This study conceptualized a multiplatform newspaper as a combination
of two major attributesformat and priceand introduced conjoint analysis, a marketing research method, to online news research. Results showed
that price generates a greater utility than format suggesting that, although
consumers preferred the combined format (online plus print), they were not
necessarily willing to pay more than a certain amount for it. The lack of
enthusiasm for all six payment models also suggested that how users are
charged does not make a difference in paying intent. What seems more
important is whether they are charged or not.
In his book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, Chris Anderson (2009)
argued that charging even just a penny, a seemingly negligible price, can
stop the vast majority of people from consuming the product because, when
confronted with a price, our brains would raise the Is it worth it? flag.
This penny gap concept (Anderson, 2009, p. 59), together with research
in consumer psychology on the price of zero (Shampanier, Mazar, & Ariely,
2007), helps explain why none of the payment models were well-received.
Regarding the consequence of switching from free to fee, it is almost
certain that the paywall would prevent most users from visiting the site
or downloading the app.16 Even newspaper publishers themselves had
reservations about the revenue opportunity of paid models48% believed
subscription revenues would make only negligible contributions to total digital revenue in the next 12 months (Jenner & Fleming, 2011). So, why would
newspapers pursue the subscription plan, knowing that the paywall may turn
away the majority of users, whom they have always been striving to serve?

Predictors of Paying Intent

243

An important but less explicit motivation is to protect the print edition,

a view held by U.K. online news executives (Herbert & Thurman, 2007)
and their U.S. counterparts28% of news executives said the purpose of the
paywall is to preserve print circulation (American Press Institute, 2009); also,
35% of daily newspaper publishers believed the paid model would slow or
stop circulation decreases (Jenner & Fleming, 2011). A compelling example
is The Arkansas Democrat-Gazettethis mid-metro papers digital paywall
has been in effect since 2002, and its print circulation recorded an increase
of 3.2% during 2000 through 2010, while most U.S. newspapers experienced
sharp circulation declines during the same period (Doctor, 2011a). Viewing
the online paywall as a defensive strategy for the print edition, one can argue
this: Simply because no one would pay, does not mean newspapers should
not charge for it.
However, newspapers may need to rethink their business models,
which, according to Picard (2010, para. 3), mean much more than generating revenue streams and involve companies competences, value created,
products/services provided, customers served, relationships established with
customers and partner firms, and the operational requirements. For example, one rationale motivating U.S. newspapers collective transition from print
to online is cost reductionnewsprint costs typically account for 20% to
35% of a newspapers overall costs (Picard & Brody, 1997). However, after
15 years of trial and error, the less than satisfactory revenue prospects of the
digital experiment, as documented by this and other studies, raise important questions: Does cost saving outweigh revenue losses? Are newspapers
exchanging analog dollars for digital dimes (Dick, 2009)?
Perhaps the lack of paying intent for digital content is only the symptom, which resulted from fundamental issues, such as the commoditization
of news (McDowell, 2011) and the perceived inferiority of online content
(Chyi & Yang, 2009). To overcome such deficiencies, brand management
and product differentiation are essentialexperiments with new technology
and revenue streams are only partial solutions (McDowell, 2011).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

This study has weaknesses that should be addressed with further research.
First, this study was based on an online survey. As a result, only Internet
users were included in the analysis, which may raise questions about the
generalizability of the findings. Because this study aimed to compare paying
intent for newspapers in traditional and digital formats, it was appropriate
to examine Internet users views because they can access at least two of
the three formats under study (i.e., print and Web editions).17 Also, had
the survey been able to include people with no Internet access, paying
intent for the online formats would have been even lower than what was

244

H. I. Chyi

presented here. Second, this online survey was administered among a group
of panelists who received incentives from a commercial research firm. One
plausible source of bias is the attitudinal and behavioral differences between
those who volunteered to take the survey and those who did not (Baker,
2010). Yet, such biases exist to varying degrees in other survey methods
as well, and weighting as a post-survey adjustment technique may have
corrected at least some of the biases (Baker, 2010). Third, the survey was
conducted in August 2010, which was 4 months after Apple launched the
iPad, and the penetration rate of tablets and the availability of iPad apps
were low.18 Therefore, it could be too early to draw conclusions about
peoples paying intent to news apps. Finally, due to the exploratory nature
of the conjoint analysis, only a subsample of the respondents were asked
corresponding questionsyet, the sample size of 202 is not considered
unusual in conjoint research (Orme, 2006).
Future studies should expand the selection of predictors used in the
regression models and improve the design of the conjoint analysis. For the
former, the current models adopted the predictors used in previous studies (i.e., demographics, news interest, and media use) and ignored factors
such as professional needs to keep up with the news or other lifestyle variables that may be stronger predictors for paying intent. For the conjoint
analysis, attributes such as interactivity, multimedia features, and content
orientation may influence consumer choice, and can be incorporated into
the product profile. In addition to product attributes, external factors, such
as existing competition, may also influence the performance of a product.
Many of these factors, however, are newspaper-specific and, thus, difficult
to incorporate into a national survey like this. That is why this study used
the frame of your favorite newspaper to provide respondents with a general, yet realistic, reference point.19 To address these issues, future research
may target a specific newspaper or a smaller newspaper market so as to distinguish users from non-users when measuring their paying intent for each
format.
Taken together, paying intent is in itself an indication of perceived product value, and the future of any product in any format hinges on such value.
Despite the limitations associated with the survey methodology, this study
addressed the fundamental question on the perceived value of multiplatform
newspapers with empirical data, contributing a systematic examination of
paying intent to the recurring industry debate on newspapers revenue
models.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded by the 20092010 University of Texas at Austin Faculty
Research Grant. Special thanks go to James M. Moroney, III, publisher of The
Dallas Morning News, and Bill Tanner, senior director of strategic research,

Predictors of Paying Intent

245

for offering important advice from the industrys standpoint. I also thank
Jacie M. Yang, Avery Holton, Angela M. Lee, Kelly Kaufhold, and Erin Brady
for their assistance.

NOTES
1. For example, The Times of London, The New York Times, and The Dallas Morning News.
2. The rest were print subscribers who got access for free.
3. As of 2006, The Financial Times was the only major newspaper in the United Kingdom that
charged users for its financial news content (Herbert & Thurman, 2007).
4. It is noted that subscribers of the print edition and of Optimum Cable, which is affiliated with
the newspaper, are allowed free access. Newsday representatives assert that 75% of Long Island residents
either subscribe to the newspaper or Optimum Cable (Koblin, 2011).
5. Price elasticity of demand is defined as percentage change in quantity demanded divided by
percentage change in price.
6. Newspaper use was the only significant factor having a positive influence on paying intent for
online news.
7. In multi-attribute models, price is often conceptualized as a major product attribute (Bass &
Talarzyk, 1972; Erickson & Johansson, 1985).
8. Although conjoint analysis allows for the inclusion of more than two attributes, this exploratory
test focused on two primary attributes, as they are the key factors defining newspapers paywall plans.
In addition, because the data were collected from a national survey, it is impossible to include individual
newspapers characteristics (such as interactivity, multimedia content, etc.) in the analysis.
9. For example, the two Philadelphia newspapers have been offering discounted tablets bundled
with a 1- or 2-year contract for its apps (Seize the Future, 2011).
10. This model is also known as mass customization (Schoder, Sick, Putzke, & Kaplan, 2006).
A small-scale survey of Swedish users reported that 22% of the respondents said they were willing to pay
for personalized news services (Ihlstrm & Palmer, 2002).
11. The Nielsen survey showed that 78% of the respondents believe if they already subscribe to a
newspaper, magazine, radio, or television service, they should be able to use its online content for free
(Nielsen, 2010).
12. An active panelist is defined as someone who has taken a survey within the past 6 months.
13. The six options were not intended to have comparable value.
14. As of January 2011 (that was > 5 months after the survey was conducted), only 11% of the
total American adult population used an app to access local news and information (Rosenstiel, Mitchell,
Rainie, & Purcell, 2011).
15. In this case, they are scaled to sum to zero within each attribute (Orme, 2006).
16. The metered model would be an exception because it affects only heavy users.
17. In addition, in the United States, the penetration rate of the computer is much higher than
that of most mobile technologies, and some mobile devices (e.g., iPad ) also require users connect such
devices to a computer to be activated or managed by applications developed by the manufacturer. So,
surveying Internet users through a Web-based survey means that most mobile device users (who are
potential app users) were included in the sample.
18. Even by April 2011, fewer than 2 in 10 newspapers had a tablet app (Jenner & Fleming, 2011).
19. This frame was used in the questions on willingness to pay for three newspaper formats,
conjoint analysis, and paying intent for six payment models.

REFERENCES
American Press Institute, & ITZBelden. (2009). Online revenue initiatives. Retrieved
March 1, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.net/Mediatrend/online-rev2009-final
Anderson, C. (2009). Free: The future of a radical price. New York: Hyperion.

246

H. I. Chyi

Baker, R. (2010). Choosing between telephone and online for survey data collection.
Livonia, MI: Market Strategies International. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from
http://www.marketstrategies.com/App_Content/files/Telephone%20or%20Web.
pdf
Bass, F. M., & Talarzyk, W. W. (1972). An attitude model for the study of brand
preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 9396.
Borrell Associates, Inc. (2001). The free vs. paid debate: Newspapers must decide
between short-term ROI and long-term goals. Williamsburg, VA: Author.
Retrieved April 12, 2003, from http://www.borrellassociates.com/reports/
industrypapers/online-archives/112-the-free-vs-paid-debate
Borrell Associates, Inc. (2003, July 29). What newspaper Web sites earn?
Williamsburg, VA: Author. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.borrell
associates.com/research.html
Carlson, D. (2003). The history of online journalism. In K. Kawamoto (Ed.), Digital
journalism (pp. 3155). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Chakrapani, C. (2004). Statistics in market research. London: Arnold.
Chyi, H. I. (2005). Willingness to pay for online news: An empirical study on the
viability of the subscription model. Journal of Media Economics, 18(2), 131142.
Chyi, H. I., & Lewis, S. C. (2009). Use of online newspaper sites lags behind print
editions. Newspaper Research Journal, 30(4), 3853.
Chyi, H. I., Lewis, S. C., & Zheng, N. (2012). A matter of life and death? Examining
how newspapers covered the newspaper crisis. Journalism Studies, 13(3),
305324.
Chyi, H. I., & Sylvie, G. (2001). The medium is global; the content is not: The role
of geography in online newspaper markets. Journal of Media Economics, 14(4),
231248.
Chyi, H. I., & Yang, M. J. (2009). Is online news an inferior good? Examining the economic nature of online news among users. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 86, 594612.
Chyi, H. I., & Yang, M. J. (2012). Who would miss getting news online and why
(not)? Examining the emotional attachment to online newsAn inferior good.
In F. L. F. Lee, L. Leung, J. L. Qiu, & D. S. C. Chu (Eds.), Frontiers in new media
research (pp. 173190). New York: Routledge.
Coddington, M. (2010, January 22). This week in review: The New York Times
paywall plans, and whats behind MediaNews bankruptcy. Nieman Journalism
Lab. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/
this-week-in-review-the-new-york-times-paywall-plans-and-whats-behindmedianews-bankruptcy/
Dick, B. (2009, January 14). Spending analog dollars to get digital pennies.
Broadcast Engineering. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://blog.
broadcastengineering.com/brad/2009/01/14/spending-analog-dollars-to-getdigital-pennies/
Doctor, K. (2011a, June 9). The newsonomics of defense and offense. Nieman
Journalism Lab. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from http://www.niemanlab.
org/2011/06/the-newsonomics-of-defense-and-offense/
Doctor, K. (2011b, March 7). Nine questions on the Dallas Morning News pay plan.
Newsonomics. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://newsonomics.com/ninequestions-on-the-dallas-morning-news-pay-plan/

Predictors of Paying Intent

247

Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195199.
Etheridge, E. (2009, February 6). Micropayments! Not! NYTimes.com. Retrieved
November 1, 2011, from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/
micropayments-not/?ref=opinion
Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs
about an object and the attitude toward the object. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),
Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 389399). New York: Wiley.
Fisher, L. (2005). Random sampling versus panel-based research. MRA Alert
Magazine. Chicago, IL: Synovate.
Friedman, D. (2003, November 5). From free to fee in 10 easy steps. Online
Journalism Review. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/
business/1068080483.php
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues
and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103123.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4),
319.
Halliday, J. (2010, July 20). Times loses almost 90% of online readership. The
Guardian. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/
2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership
Herbert, J., & Thurman, N. (2007). Paid content strategies for news Websites.
Journalism Practice, 1, 208226.
Hoskins, C., McFadyen, S., & Finn, A. (2004). Media economics: Applying economics
to new and traditional media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hussman, W. E. J. (2007, May 7). How to sink a newspaper. The Wall Street Journal,
p. A15.
Ihlstrm, C., & Palmer, J. (2002). Revenues for online newspapers: Owner and user
perceptions. Electronic Markets, 12, 228236.
Isaacson, W. (2009, February 5). How to save your newspaper. Time.com.
Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/
0,8599,1877191,00.html
Jaccard, J., Brinberg, D., & Ackerman, L. J. (1986). Assessing attribute importance: A
comparison of six methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 463468.
Jarvis, J. (2007, September 20). Times deselected. BuzzMachine. Retrieved October
1, 2007, from http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/17/times-deselected/
Jarvis, J. (2010, January 28). The danger of the wall. BuzzMachine. Retrieved
March 26, 2010, from http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/01/28/the-danger-ofthe-wall/
Jenner, M., & Fleming, K. (2011, April 26). The push to paid: Attitudes of publishers toward paid content. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Reynolds
Journalism Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.niemanlab.org/
pdfs/rjipaidcontent.pdf
Jupiter Media Metrix. (2003, January 6). Bumpy road from free to fee: Paid
online content revenues to reach only $5.8 billion by 2006, reports jupiter
media metrix. Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://banners.noticiasdot.
com/termometro/boletines/docs/consultoras/jupiter/2002/jupiter_Paid_Online_
Content_Revenues.pdf

248

H. I. Chyi

Kawamoto, K. (2003). Digital journalism: Emerging media and the changing horizons
of journalism. In K. Kawamoto (Ed.), Digital journalism (pp. 129). Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the
impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone
survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759779.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences
of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 125148.
Kinsley, M. (2009, February 10). You cant sell news by the slice. The New York
Times, p. A27.
Koblin, J. (2011, January 26). After three months, only 35 subscriptions for Newsdays Web site. New York Observer. Retrieved March 20,
2011, from http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35subscriptions-newsdays-web-site
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political
Economy, 74, 132157.
Langeveld, M. (2010, April 5). Is print still king? Has online made a move?
Updating a controversial post. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved May 28, 2010,
from http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/is-print-still-king-has-online-made-amove-updating-a-controversial-post/
Lewis, R. (1995). Relation between newspaper subscription price and circulation,
19711992. Journal of Media Economics, 8(1), 25.
McDowell, W. S. (2011). The brand management crisis facing the business of
journalism. International Journal on Media Management, 13(1), 3751.
Mings, S. M., & White, P. B. (2000). Profiting from online news: The search for
viable business models. In B. Kahin & H. R. Varian (Eds.), Internet publishing
and beyond: The economics of digital information and intellectual property (pp.
6296). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newspaper Association of America. (2011). Advertising expenditures. Arlington, VA:
Author. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/
Advertising-Expenditures/Annual-All-Categories.aspx
Nielsen. (2010, February). Changing models: A global perspective on paying for
content online. Nielsen Wire. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.
com/nielsenwire/reports/paid-online-content.pdf
Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison, MI: Research
Publishers.
Outing, S. (2002, August 14). Examining paid contents future. Irvine, CA: Editor &
Publisher. Retrieved December 22, 2002, from http://www.editorandpublisher.
com/editorandpublisher/features_columns/stop_archive.jsp
Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. In R. N.
Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 2055). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Prez-Pea, R. (2009, October 22). Newsday to charge to read its Web site. The New
York Times, p. B4.
Picard, R. G. (2005). The nature of media product portfolios. In R. G. Picard
(Ed.), Media product portfolios: Issues in management of multiple products and
services (pp. 122). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

Predictors of Paying Intent

249

Picard, R. G. (2010, April 20). Search for alternative media business

models hampered by narrow thinking. The Media Business. Retrieved
June 23, 2011, from http://themediabusiness.blogspot.com/2010/04/search-foralternative-media-business.html
Picard, R. G., & Brody, J. H. (1997). The newspaper publishing industry. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Project for Excellence in Journalism, & Edmonds, R. (2006). Economics. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://stateofthemedia.org/2006/
newspapers-intro/economics/
Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367372.
Rosenstiel, T., Mitchell, A., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Survey: Mobile news &
paying online. Washington, DC: Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved
April 10, 2011, from http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/mobile-survey/
Sawtooth Software, Inc. (2008, August 3). What is conjoint analysis? Orem, UT:
Author. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/
Sawtooth Software, Inc. (2010). SSI Web (Version 3.2) [Computer software]. Orem,
UT: Author. Retrieved July 22, 2010, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/
products/ssiweb/
Schoder, D., Sick, S., Putzke, J., & Kaplan, A. M. (2006). Mass customization in
the newspaper industry: Consumers attitudes toward individualized media
innovations. International Journal on Media Management, 8, 918.
Schwer, R. K., & Daneshvary, R. (1995). Willingness to pay for public television and
the advent of look-alike cable television channels: A case study. Journal of
Media Economics, 8(3), 95109.
Seize the future (2011). Philly.com. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://
www.philly.com/philly/video/BC1155603089001.html?c=0.8061542966413994&
posted=n
Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true
value of free products. Marketing Science, 26, 742.
Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys:
A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4, 2640.
Shirky, C. (2003, September 5). Fame vs fortune: Micropayments and free content.
Clay Shirkys Writings About the Internet. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://www.shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html
Steinbock, D. (2000). Building dynamic capabilities: The Wall Street Journal interactive edition: A successful online subscription model (19932000). International
Journal on Media Management, 2, 178194.
Sulzberger, A. O. (2011, March 17). A letter to our readers about digital subscriptions.
NYTimes.com. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/
18/opinion/l18times.html
Survey Sampling International LLC. (2008). ESOMAR 26. Encino, CA: Author.
Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.surveysampling.com/en/forms/ssiinformation
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010).
Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of
Communication, 60, 758777.

250

H. I. Chyi

Wilkie, W. L., & Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Issues in marketings use of multi-attribute

attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 428441.
Windsor, T. (2009, February 10). Will paid content work? Two cautionary tales from 2004. Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved September 18,
2011, from http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/will-paid-content-work-twocautionary-tales-from-2004/