If the New York Times can't even get half a million subscribers, how well does that bode for other publications? Even at that they still allow anyone coming in from Facebook and Twitter to view the articles for free. I know I haven't run into their paywall yet.
I think for most people it's like buying bottled water while having a faucet full of it. There has to be added value.
Howard, you are the expert on this, has extra content or expanded stories worked for publishers? The one thing that I could see myself paying for would be an AD free mobile version.
Kevin said the NYT can't even get half a million subscribers. That was an interesting perspective because the argument from publishers putting up paywalls is "look at how successful the NYT is."
To me, exceptionally great, national outlets like the NYT and WSJ are poor examples of what the typical metro or small town newspaper can expect.
I'm not aware of any newspapers that have put up paywalls that are actually providing any added-value services, such as more content, multimedia, and deeper, richer reporting. The D&C says it will do this and add staff.
I'm skeptical because Gannett is in such dire straits and has been cutting staff like crazy for the past three or four years. It seems like a huge gap to bridge for a newspaper to say, "suddenly we're giving you all the great content we should have been giving you all along, and if you pay for it, we'll show it to you."
The problems newspapers face predate the Internet -- the net has only accelerated decline, it didn't cause it -- so putting up a paywall isn't exactly the right answer to save them now.
Newspaper people will tell you, "we produce all this great content for you, so you should pay for it -- what we do is valuable, so you should pay for it." Unfortunately, never in the history of America, have news consumers seen it that way. Walter Lippmann wrote about this problem in 1920.
People want to pay as little as possible for their news. When the New York World raised its newsstand price from 2 cents to 3 cents in 1926 and no other papers followed suit, it killed them. The New York World, once the greatest newspaper in the world by all accounts, was out of business by 1931.
I don't get why publishers think forcing people to pay online is a wise business strategy.
Sure... If they can come up with a pad measuring 15 by 23 inches that folds in two places and is immune to the food and drink I consume while reading it.
I don't see why newspapers shouldn't charge a reasonable price for those who choose to get their news on-line to those who aren't regular subscribers. The papers still have to pay for the reporters, editors, printers, etc.. Advertising doesn't cover all of the costs leaving it up to the publisher to cover the cost.
I subscribe to several papers on-line as well as enjoying home delivery of the Buffalo News every day. The cost of on-line subscriptions is less than the delivered subscription cost and provides insights into other communities. I truly enjoy the news service the Batavnian provides and would be more than willing to sign up be a paid subscriber.
Winston Churchill while in residence at the White House during WW2 was asked by an American journalist what he thought about everyday life here in America compared to life at home in England, apparently a fan of tabloids, without hesitation he replied "Your toilet tissue is to thin and your newspapers to thick"
This is an interesting question. If you had asked me this even 6 months ago I would have said, "no!"
I like the act of turning a page even though I'm allergic to newsprint, so I subscribe to the weekend D & C. Lately, though, I've been so busy that I my weekend papers have been piling up. When this happens I can't help but think of all of the resources that went into getting them to me. As a result my opinion has conditionally changed.
I would pay for publications that are currently in print IFF the cost was less than the print version and their is an app to go with it so I can read it anywhere.
I encountered several (print) newspapers that would give you the beginning of the article and then the 'gotcha'. "Read the rest of this article at www.xxx..." , you get the idea. The first time I tried that, I was hit with a pop up asking me to subscribe to the newspaper.
I couldn't help but think about people who are not connected to the internet (and, yes there are many). How frustrating it must be to start reading something interesting and find you have to get the rest online, not knowing that you also have to pay.
Maybe you should stay off the XXX sites Bea, they always make you pay :)
I will never understand paying for print. I get all my news through Google Reader and Wham 1180. If it doesn't come through there, then I don't care enough about it to have set up a feed. There are too many free news sources for me to read as it is. The D and C's paywall won't affect me. I can't stand their sites layout and paying to use a ban UI is stupid.
For what it's worth I think the NY Times is doing it right if you're going to do a paywall. Allowing inbound links from social networks keeps the viral effect going and they can still cash-in on advertising. I think it's fine that those who want to stick around longer and read the Times more thoroughly pay for it. Make it available on tablets, mobile, etc for paid subscribers.
If the pay wall were working so well, though, why would they lower the number of free articles from 20 to 10 per month?
I take lowering from 20 to 10 is a sign that it is working for them.
They feel confident enough to further restrict access and squeeze out more subscribers. I'm sure they think in a perfect world, it would be 100 percent subscription based.
I figured there would be more
I figured there would be more no than yes votes, but I'm genuinely surprised at how lopsided it is.
If the New York Times can't
If the New York Times can't even get half a million subscribers, how well does that bode for other publications? Even at that they still allow anyone coming in from Facebook and Twitter to view the articles for free. I know I haven't run into their paywall yet.
LOL....man we're all a bunch
LOL....man we're all a bunch of cheap people! Myself included!
I think for most people it's
I think for most people it's like buying bottled water while having a faucet full of it. There has to be added value.
Howard, you are the expert on this, has extra content or expanded stories worked for publishers? The one thing that I could see myself paying for would be an AD free mobile version.
Kevin said the NYT can't even
Kevin said the NYT can't even get half a million subscribers. That was an interesting perspective because the argument from publishers putting up paywalls is "look at how successful the NYT is."
To me, exceptionally great, national outlets like the NYT and WSJ are poor examples of what the typical metro or small town newspaper can expect.
I'm not aware of any newspapers that have put up paywalls that are actually providing any added-value services, such as more content, multimedia, and deeper, richer reporting. The D&C says it will do this and add staff.
I'm skeptical because Gannett is in such dire straits and has been cutting staff like crazy for the past three or four years. It seems like a huge gap to bridge for a newspaper to say, "suddenly we're giving you all the great content we should have been giving you all along, and if you pay for it, we'll show it to you."
The problems newspapers face predate the Internet -- the net has only accelerated decline, it didn't cause it -- so putting up a paywall isn't exactly the right answer to save them now.
Newspaper people will tell you, "we produce all this great content for you, so you should pay for it -- what we do is valuable, so you should pay for it." Unfortunately, never in the history of America, have news consumers seen it that way. Walter Lippmann wrote about this problem in 1920.
People want to pay as little as possible for their news. When the New York World raised its newsstand price from 2 cents to 3 cents in 1926 and no other papers followed suit, it killed them. The New York World, once the greatest newspaper in the world by all accounts, was out of business by 1931.
I don't get why publishers think forcing people to pay online is a wise business strategy.
Sure... If they can come up
Sure... If they can come up with a pad measuring 15 by 23 inches that folds in two places and is immune to the food and drink I consume while reading it.
If the D & C gets any thinner
If the D & C gets any thinner it will be competing with church newsletters.
I don't see why newspapers
I don't see why newspapers shouldn't charge a reasonable price for those who choose to get their news on-line to those who aren't regular subscribers. The papers still have to pay for the reporters, editors, printers, etc.. Advertising doesn't cover all of the costs leaving it up to the publisher to cover the cost.
I subscribe to several papers on-line as well as enjoying home delivery of the Buffalo News every day. The cost of on-line subscriptions is less than the delivered subscription cost and provides insights into other communities. I truly enjoy the news service the Batavnian provides and would be more than willing to sign up be a paid subscriber.
Winston Churchill while in
Winston Churchill while in residence at the White House during WW2 was asked by an American journalist what he thought about everyday life here in America compared to life at home in England, apparently a fan of tabloids, without hesitation he replied "Your toilet tissue is to thin and your newspapers to thick"
This is an interesting
This is an interesting question. If you had asked me this even 6 months ago I would have said, "no!"
I like the act of turning a page even though I'm allergic to newsprint, so I subscribe to the weekend D & C. Lately, though, I've been so busy that I my weekend papers have been piling up. When this happens I can't help but think of all of the resources that went into getting them to me. As a result my opinion has conditionally changed.
I would pay for publications that are currently in print IFF the cost was less than the print version and their is an app to go with it so I can read it anywhere.
I encountered several (print)
I encountered several (print) newspapers that would give you the beginning of the article and then the 'gotcha'. "Read the rest of this article at www.xxx..." , you get the idea. The first time I tried that, I was hit with a pop up asking me to subscribe to the newspaper.
I couldn't help but think about people who are not connected to the internet (and, yes there are many). How frustrating it must be to start reading something interesting and find you have to get the rest online, not knowing that you also have to pay.
Maybe you should stay off the
Maybe you should stay off the XXX sites Bea, they always make you pay :)
I will never understand paying for print. I get all my news through Google Reader and Wham 1180. If it doesn't come through there, then I don't care enough about it to have set up a feed. There are too many free news sources for me to read as it is. The D and C's paywall won't affect me. I can't stand their sites layout and paying to use a ban UI is stupid.
For the first time, in a long
For the first time, in a long time, Peter and I agree.
For what it's worth I think
For what it's worth I think the NY Times is doing it right if you're going to do a paywall. Allowing inbound links from social networks keeps the viral effect going and they can still cash-in on advertising. I think it's fine that those who want to stick around longer and read the Times more thoroughly pay for it. Make it available on tablets, mobile, etc for paid subscribers.
If the pay wall were working so well, though, why would they lower the number of free articles from 20 to 10 per month?
I take lowering from 20 to 10
I take lowering from 20 to 10 is a sign that it is working for them.
They feel confident enough to further restrict access and squeeze out more subscribers. I'm sure they think in a perfect world, it would be 100 percent subscription based.