NEWS WEBSITE PAYWALLS: Business Model vs. Social Media?

I just ran into the ugly paywall at 2 newspapers when trying to do research for a story.

It used to be, in the day of the typewriter, you could go to the local or college library and pull all the clips, papers, periodicals, microfiche, etc. you needed to research a story – for free.

Now with the Internet and the new paywalls that news and content providers are putting up, you’ll have to pay for it. Seems kinda crazy, huh?

Paywalls will cause a lot of trouble for news aggregators; but, what about writers working on stories and social media users that want to share a story with their followers or friends (from Facebook, Twitter, G+, etc.)?

Doesn’t that cut down on traffic to a news site and therefore fresh eyeballs to advertisers?

Will every “share” have to be paid for if someone clicks on the link?

I get the business model problem for news producers.  Content is expensive to get and produce. They don’t want to give it away for free.

But I don’t get how a paywall fits in with what happens on social networking today where it’s a free-for-all of content sharing.

Sharing “out” from a news site is very understandable. The subscriber pays to be there and shares what he or she finds out with their networks.  It’s sharing “in” to a news site that causes a problem in my mind.  The followers and friends that click the link will then have to pay – typically  a monthly subscription?  Who would do that?

There are over 1,400 news outlets producing content in the U.S.  Twenty percent are expected to have paywalls by the end of this year.  Warren Buffett just bought dozens of papers and he believes in paywalls.

If you do a lot of sharing and exploring today, you probably won’t be doing it in the future.  Too expensive.   Imagine having to whip out your credit card every time you click a link from a friend.

Seems like there will be a clash between news producers and social media users.

More questions than answers…  What do you think?