First, use a micropayment system to peak load price the top five stories of the day. If you want to read the local story of the day, then you’ll have to make a micropayment. Who wouldn’t pony up to get the latest on fire coverage or the story about the guy who saved someone’s life? Subscribers to the site would have full access (maybe bundle this with a print subscription?) but the non loyalists to the site would have to pay a little to read the content.

Second, wall off the top three features overall. So for the Orange County Register for example, require micropayments if you want to read OC Varsity, Frank Micadeit or Jonathan Lansner. Subscribers to the site would have full access.

Third, wall off periodicals. Make people pay a little to get a story that ran last week.

Fourth, try to find a way to make the news aggregators pay for the content they’re making tons of money from.. I could see getting paid on a per click basis when someone doing a Google search clicks on a newspaper’s story.

Bonus idea: have every north american news agency agree to wall off their content from the news aggregators. The absence of free news would force people to have to pay their local news websites a fee.

I think the idea of partnering with local cable providers has some merit but I like the micropayment idea better.

Every once in a while we’re given the opportunity to do something transformative. Who says media companies have to keep giving away content for free? Now would be the time to draw a line in the sand.

My two cents.

When publishers don’t grasp the importance of a branded website–we’ve all seen those city-branded sites where the local paper’s content is a bit of an afterthought–then how can they be expected to leverage digital media into revenue? Let the national/international news sites grab the lion’s share of online readers of free content. City papers need to promote the heck out of the fact that they offer unique information that’s valuable to the denizens of that town. Then, like print subscribers of an earlier age, those readers be willing to pay for this content, whether through a micropayment program or another method.

Since I spent a decade working on newspapers, I still see their value and hope they won’t die. I recently offered some detailed advice on how to save daily publications using digital media as part of a multi-channel strategy:

http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/branding-roi-go-hand-in-hand-for-newspapers/

http://www.mobilestorm.com/digital-marketing-blog/sms-email-marketing-can-help-newspapers-survive/

At one level, you’re obviously correct: no one wants more work, and to the extent that my proposal involves interaction between the journalist and the user, there’s more work. Fine. No one’s arguing that it wouldn’t be different, unfamiliar, tough, etc.

But at another level, the journalist would be paid, potentially a big chunk of his income, by offering special access to some users. Is it really the case that journalists think of themselves as so busy that they can’t imagine a (very) different way of doing business?

I mean, the actually good argument you might offer is this: “Look, journalists only have so many hours in the day. Users will pay them for some things that don’t require additional work, but users will also expect some of their time directly. That means a journalist either loses sleep or has to cut back on reporting. Lost sleep isn’t an option. And although cutting back on reporting might seem plausible, it’s really not, because it would dilute the other side of reporters’ value proposition to their users so much that their users wouldn’t really want to pay enough anymore. The market’s just not there.”

Of course, I happen not to think that argument has much purchase. Arguing about how busy with reporting journalists are *now* fails to locate my proposition in the relevant context, which could look more or less radically different from now.

The amount of reporting per journalist might decrease, but that’s not a reason in itself that the aggregate amount of reporting would decrease. There could simply be more reporters! So if the average reporter had to reallocate twenty percent of her time to reader interaction, a twenty-five percent increase in reporters would fill the gap.

Of course, the whole proposition is that there’s a real human value proposition, trust between creator and user, that charity simply lacks. So while it’s certainly true that my proposition would be a big flop in the market if it turned out that users were only willing to pay creators for interaction that amounted to BFFs, which would prevent creators from creating, it’s not at all clear that users wouldn’t tolerate somewhat less reporting in order for access to and some connection with creators, especially in light of the fact that trust is sorely lacking between journalists and readers today.

Steve’s first point should be studied carefully: Kachingle is not THE answer. But, it might help provide some $$.

My fear is that it would damage the newspaper’s local brand and undercut what they might charge for ads and subscriptions. I wish it were not true, but the reality is that many perceive value by price.

I am looking for, and trying to develop, ways for newspapers to add value and thus enhance their local brand.

Kachingle deployed carefully, however, on some products, in some markets, might even enhance a brand, making a blog or marketplace “of and for the people,” for example. How a publisher packages it will make all of the difference.

But, again–and thank you Steve for saying it–newspapers need to seriously consider lots of different, little things. The goal is to build the most powerful network locally for news, marketing and information. That will enhance their brand and their bottom line, both.

Y’know who this model would work great for? Professional athletes with not-too-massive celebrity. Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger would be too overwhelmed, but one of his offensive lineman might make some money with your idea. Or a pro climber with passionate fans, because the niche is small enough that it would be workable.

Spinning off that, a news organization could be the athlete’s home base for this paid-interaction scheme — but more likely it would work for the athlete’s personal blog.