Apple as savior? Nope; it's the content, stupid

[One of many mock-ups shown in Wall Street Journal video, above]

I pay $149 yearly to subscribe to the online editions of The Wall Street Journal and its sister business publication, Barron's magazine. Both publish stories that are richly reported and edited, and often exclusive in meaningful ways.

For many of the same reasons, I also read The New York Times online daily: Its business, political and cultural coverage is some of the best anywhere in the country. Access is free, but I'd I pay to read it online, if the company offered that option -- and it will, beginning early next year, for its most heavy users.

In between those two journals, I also check plenty of other free-to-read newspapers, including USA Today and dozens of other Gannett papers. But would I pay to read them if I weren't covering the company as a blogger?

Probably not -- and the reason has nothing to do with available hardware. After all, since I bought my first iPhone two years ago, I've been able to read nearly anything I want, wherever and whenever I want, so long as I can get a network signal or tap into a Wi-Fi line. Instead, it's about content -- or the paucity of it.

A whole lot has already been written about Apple's new tablet, a multimedia gizmo some observers say could be the savior of newspapers. And it hasn't even made its debut. That unveiling is expected to come at 10 a.m. tomorrow during a breathlessly anticipated event here in San Francisco. Plenty of publishers, including the New York Times, are praying that it'll be the piece of hardware that comes closest to mimicing the mobile experience of reading a printed paper. If successful, that would give publishers the courage to take the next step: charging for online access.

Indeed, the Times is already developing a version of its paper for the tablet, the paper says in a story today; engineers reportedly have been working secretly at Apple's Silicon Valley headquarters south of San Francisco. I expect USA Today is at least considering a similar step; it launched its own iPhone application more than a year ago.

Citing analysts briefed on the device, the NYT's story today described the tablet this way: "It will run all the applications of the iPhone and iPod Touch, have a persistent wireless connection over 3G cellphone networks and Wi-Fi, and will be built with a 10-inch color display, allowing newspapers, magazines and book publishers to deliver their products with an eye to the design that had grabbed readers in print."

It's been widely reported that the tablet (we won't know what Apple's calling it until tomorrow) will sell for around $1,000. That compares with $259 for Amazon's wireless Kindle e-book reader, which doesn't offer anywhere near as many bells-and-whistles.

Paying to read Gannett sites?
But will the tablet come to the rescue of Gannett's 84 U.S. dailies, allowing the company to charge for online subscriptions in order to create a much needed additional revenue stream? I hope so (after all, I've got plenty of friends still working for the company). Yet, I worry the company has so depleted newsrooms over the past decade -- and, especially during the last two years -- that its newspapers don't offer enough to inspire readers to pay for access. And I'm not alone.

"I read a few Gannett sites a day," Anonymous@1:24 p.m. wrote here on a recent post, "but would never pay for the service. I'd pay to read the Guardian, but not anything Gannett, including USAT."

That's representative of many comments posted last week, after I asked readers whether they would pay to read their own websites.

Now, it's conceivable that with a new source of revenue, Gannett and other publishers might reinvest in content by creating new jobs for reporters, editors, photographers, artists and others, plus advertising sales positions to serve the businesses we hope would return to a stronger publication. But that becomes a chicken-and-egg dilemma: Will readers pay for what's published now? Or will Gannett gamble today they'll pay in the future for something better.

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

[Image, inset: today's USAT, Newseum]