I think newspaper archives are a gold mine if only newspapers would get smart with them. . First of all, the per-article fees are ridiculously high. The packages of articles (10 for $X) are not much better, and some newspapers put a time limit on these downloads, which is consumer-hostile. In addition, abstracts frequently do not provide enough information (i.e. displaying hits on keywords you've searched). Like Rick Brown, I've ended up paying for stories that did not fit my needs.
I believe Steve Outing has been advocating a model similar to cable TV, whereby you can subscribe to several newspaper archives with one fee. I would do that -- it would streamline the process and give me the kind of access I need. Databases such as e-library are not as good when you need small, local stories. I would prefer to be able to search individual newspaper archives.
If newspapers were smart, they would start packaging their archives and selling bundles of related stories. When I worked for the Dallas Morning News travel section, I frequently fielded phone calls asking for reprints of old stories. (Typically the call went something like this: "You ran an article last year, or maybe it was two years ago, about a restaurant in Paris. I think it was written by a woman, or maybe it was a man and he ate either chicken or steak. Can you send me a copy of that article?") What if the paper bundled 20 Paris stories for one-click shopping? Around the time of local elections, papers could bundle stories about candidates. They could bundle barbecue recipes. How about a bundle of stories focusing on the history of the problems in the Middle East? The trouble with the information age is that there's too much darn information and the more information brokers can do to sort through it for people, the happier everyone will be to pay.
Finally, I think newspapers are being ridiculously short-sighted, post-Tasini lawsuit, in purging freelancers' work from their archives rather than coughing up a few pennies per story to keep their historical records complete. Yes, I'm a freelancer and I serve to "profit" (i.e. earn enough to pay to download my own stories) but this is not an entirely self-serving sentiment. I will say it again: Newspaper archives are a goldmine, if they would only market them intelligently. To save money by gutting them is unwise.
Second, if "free" online archives via the library become more commonplace, the content providers may either stop providing content to the database if it's being redistributed for free or cheaper than their own archives, or demand higher compensation from the libraries or data aggregators, thereby requiring more taxes to fund the system. Looks free, but it isn't.
Third, there's a difference between a library providing a limited number of user stations with access to an archive database at its brick-and-mortar location and broadcasting the same service to all patrons simultaneously via the Internet. I'd think there'd be some debate by the archive supplier about number of user licenses and usage fees. Shoot, the database company is going to undercut itself under a model of unlimited free access. Surely, they'll want to charge more for wider access, thus raising the cost of tax subsidy.
Fourth, how can free archives with advertising on a newspaper site successfully compete with free archives minus advertising on the library site? I didn't have a library account to access the examples given, but I assume there are no X10 Camera pop-unders populating those library databases. If that model becomes widely accessible, we can say goodbye to anything other than tax-supported library archives because even a free commercial site might not be able to compete.
My theory is that newspaper archives don't necessarily have to be free (or I should say "solely advertiser supported") to be successful, but if they're not free, they shouldn't be so darned overpriced. Users may be willing to pay some nominal fee like 15 cents per article or 10 articles for a dollar, if the logistics of collecting those small amounts can be made feasible on the provider's side. Alternatively, an archives model charging a small fee for a time-limited pass and/or one that gives print subscribers free access may also be viable. Here's a Catch-22 for fee-based archives: How am I supposed to determine if the article sampled in a free search of paid archives contains the information I'm seeking until after I've read the whole thing? Why spend $2.95 to find out that's not what you wanted? Instead, you discover you needed the followup article which now will cost another $2.95! Maybe if the retrieval is priced more reasonably, it wouldn't deter purchase because I could scan multiple articles on the same subject. To make a fee-based model viable, it may be that retrieval has to be priced inexpensively and/or in bulk.
