Google says you can’t charge for news, silly goose.

Google CEO and internet tyrant Eric Schmidt was recently asked what he thinks about Rupert Murdoch’s plan to charge visitors for online news.

His response echoes the words of most cynical commentators in the online news debate: people may pay for niche media like the Wall Street Journal but fat chance getting anyone to pay for general news.

“In general these models have not worked for general public consumption because there are enough free sources that the marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quantity.”

“So my guess is for niche and specialist markets … it will be possible to do it but I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do it for all news.”

While the perspective isn’t a new one, Schmidt’s comments are interesting for two reasons:

1) This is from Google, and if Google know anything its how people use the web.

2) As Editor’s Web Blog points out, his comments seem to contradict a proposal the company put forth this month to the Newspaper Association of America which laid out a micropayment system for online news. Here’s their summary of the proposal:

Google believes that an open web benefits all users and publishers.  However, “open” need not mean free.  We believe that content on the Internet can thrive supported by multiple business models — including content available only via subscription. While we believe that advertising will likely remain the main source of revenue for most news content, a paid model can serve as an important source of additional revenue.  In addition, a successful paid content model can enhance advertising opportunities, rather than replace them.

Do these words feel a tad hollow given Schmidt’s recent remarks?

Pay news and the end of ‘the great democratiser’

Editor’s web blog has some intriguing analysis on the economic viability of online news subscriptions. Emma Heald tucks away a nice thought at the end of her blog:

“And although one can argue that the consumer will be benefiting from the quality content that would be supported by pay schemes, their online news experience is likely to suffer if they are confronted by frequent paywalls that stop them from roaming the web freely.”

If online news subscription models become common place it will be a double edged sword. High quality journalism will be sustainable but it will no longer reach a vast number of people. Say what you will about the decline of newsroom numbers and the rise of PR-infused reporting, but right now anyone anywhere with an internet connection can access the cream of the crop of global journalism.

It’s an obvious point to make but a strangely ironic thought that although journalists desire a business model to sustain their battle to ‘preserve democracy’ they’ll no longer be reaching the masses they seek to inform.

I can’t imagine it’s exactly what Al Gore imagined when he was getting teary-eyed about the internet and the free flow of information.

Information comes with a price tag, baby.