New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content 332
Mr. Christmas Lights continues "The WSJ has been pretty successful with their online subscriptions - over 700,000 people currently pay $79 ($39 if you get the print edition) a year for full online access of the last 30 days of articles - the story above happens to be in their public area. But they are a notable exception, with media organizations struggling to charge for News now that it is widely available for free on the Internet. For example, Slashdot recently discussed the AP's plan to charge members to post content online. Will the "GoogleZon" end up replacing the 4th Estate as depicted in the entertaining and informative 8 minute EPIC video?"
Maybe the WSJ should read the NYT (Score:1, Informative)
BugMeNot (Score:1, Informative)
Free for NYC residents (Score:5, Informative)
Google Cache to the rescue... (Score:3, Informative)
They already have subscriptions, of a sort. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:volkskrant (Score:2, Informative)
One of the largest newspapers, with a social-democratic (in US, liberal) influence.
Archive it By Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Not perfect, but perfectly workable for most.
There Certainly Not Bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
I really think it's you that is in need of a reality check. News is free. If you don't believe check out any of the multitude of free newspapers, whether they be local community papers, to the ever increasing juggernaut that is the Metro.
but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
What you're paying for with a newspaper is the cost of paper, and delivery, that's it. That's why free newspapers like the Metro can exist, because they have very low paper costs, and require the reader to share the cost of delivery. (You have to go pick it up from one of a much smaller number of available locations.)
to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper
You've got to be kidding yourself if you think that paying for news somehow makes the news any better. I can buy any number of Star/Sun Magazines or National Enquirers, hell the NY Post practically fits this category. (I know, trolling, sorry ;-) ) What makes for good news is the underlying ethic of who's in control at the top. That's it.
I read the Economist, both in print and online, because it's a news magazine that's serious about providing good news. I don't watch Fox News, because I know Fox News is about sensationalist reporting designed to increase viewership with the end result of pushing an agenda.