Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media The Almighty Buck The Internet

More Online Publishers Inching Toward Paid Content 258

Posted by timothy from the but-there's-lots-of-free-stuff-too dept.
mattmcal writes "TheStreet.com reported its first quarterly profit with $18 million of its $26 million in revenues coming from subscriptions. WSJ.com is now up to 686,000 online subscribers. Several publishers have failed to build successful paid models in the past, such as the San Jose Mercury News, but subscription revenue is crucial during ad market dips. More and more publishers are testing these waters now that the evidence of success has become real. Washingtonpost.com and Media Guardian UK both announced recently they will require registration. This may be just the beginning of a mad rush to drop a registration gate on the major news sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Online Publishers Inching Toward Paid Content More

More Online Publishers Inching Toward Paid Content

Comments Filter:
  • I have NO REGRETS about paying to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times.

    The extra features I get as a Slashdot subscriber are well worth the cost, and getting the Times news fresh every morning with my cup of coffee is unbeatable. I love their fresh angle on each news story, and really appreciate the Editorials page.

    Count me in, America - I'm a happy online news subscriber - and lovin' it!

    • Re:Online subscriptions - I'm LOVIN' it! (Score:4, Funny)

      by cscx ( 541332 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:12PM (#8352079) Homepage
      The extra features I get as a Slashdot subscriber are well worth the cost,

      Do you get to see "HTTP Error 503 - Service Unavailable" in ... the mysterious future?!
      • Oh, give them a break.

        Slashdot is the ONLY site on the net that is getting slashdotted 24/7. I'd love to see their bandwidth usage :D

        But seriously, its a bit odd that one of the largest sites on the net keeps going down. Maybe they need me to come in and build them a redundant network/server farm ;)

      • Seriously: What's the Objection, Exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:37PM (#8353836) Homepage Journal

        I swear, I'm not trolling. Seriously.

        Every time a NYTimes story is posted to Slashdot, it's accompanied by a slew of quips and complaints about registration. In the comments below, myriad people have griped about registration for the LATimes, the Washington Post, and other news sites.

        Can someone offer a reasonable explanation why these registrations are so bad? They're not particularly invasive. They're free. They allow random, blatantly false information to be given. So what's the problem?

        I think it's amazing that I can read the NYTimes every day, free. Same goes for those other newspapers and websites. If the Wall Street Journal was free, I'd be happy to fork over my name and address to read it online. I don't understand the general objection: You can spend a dollar daily and read it on paper, or you can give your name -- or ANY name -- and read it online free, for years.

        How is that a rip-off?

        crib

    • I have NO REGRETS about paying to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times.

      I can understand having no regrets to pay for NYT, but *Slashdot*? I will gladly pay Slashdot when they require everybody to pay, and disallow non-paying posters, and ban trolls even when they pay. But as long as they allow anybody and their dogs to post anything, the S/N ratio will continue to suck pond water from the bottom, and as a consequence, the content will keep being worth what I currently pay for it, which is close to
      • I can understand having no regrets to pay for NYT

        I can't. I mean, the online version is free. Dunno who he's paying, but they're scamming him nicely...
      • The belief that just because something is done online makes it profitable is one that many have learned the fallacy of the hard way. The internet makes a great content delivery system for a valid marketable product, but not so great for advertising and definitely not good for cash appearing from nowhere. (Note: most internet ads are for crap products, if they expressed valid product info for decent products I might bite. Same flaw with most advertising though, they appear to assume people are far too impres
      • " I will gladly pay Slashdot when they require everybody to pay, and disallow non-paying posters, and ban trolls even when they pay. But as long as they allow anybody and their dogs to post anything, the S/N ratio will continue to suck pond water from the bottom, and as a consequence, the content will keep being worth what I currently pay for it, which is close to naught."

        How this got modded insteresting is astounding. This is flamebait if I ever heard it. There is a reason we have the moderation system

    • The above post was brought to you by McDonald's. [mcdonalds.com] I don't know about you, but i'm lovin' it!
    • Im already paying to get online, why should i have to pay for content as well?

      We have to suffer thru advertisments already...

      If i wanted to pay for content, id buy a f-ing newspaper or magazine.. Something that will actually last for a while, and wont go away or be changed on the publishers whim...

      Nickel and diming the internet ( and life in general ) to death..

      • Entirely Separate Services (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:17PM (#8353744) Homepage Journal
        Im already paying to get online, why should i have to pay for content as well?
        I'm sure you're trolling, but since it's often asked: Because you're paying two people (or companies) for two entirely different services.

        When you pay your ISP $9.95 per month, you buy a connection to the internet. Your ISP makes no guarantee about what you'll find on the internet. They provide connections, not content. If you're a dedicated Slashdot reader who doesn't visit any other websites, and Slashdot closes down, do you expect your ISP to refund your subscription? Of course not. They didn't promise that Slashdot would be online. They only promised that you would be.

        For that matter, why not carry your question in the other direction? Your ISP connects your computer to someone else's content. If you think your ISP fee should entitle you to free content, then shouldn't it also entitle you to a free computer? You might as well say, "I'm already paying to get online. Why should I have to pay Apple for this new PowerBook, too?"

        crib

  • Not necessarily all bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sad Loser ( 625938 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:11PM (#8352072)

    This may not be a complete disaster, as a it will provide a stimulation to the micropayment technologies, which could be useful to subsidise low cost environments such as open source content projects e.g. wikipedia.

    The marginal cost to the really big (Fox, CNN) and/or publicly funded institutions (BBC) of providing web-based news is probably pretty low, and it is effectively a loss leader to bring people into their portal, so there is not really an incentive to charge, so I don't think free general news is disappearing any time soon.

    • Pay can be both good and bad. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@noSpam.sbcglobal.net> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:44PM (#8352331) Homepage Journal
      "The marginal cost to the really big (Fox, CNN) and/or publicly funded institutions (BBC) of providing web-based news is probably pretty low, and it is effectively a loss leader to bring people into their portal, so there is not really an incentive to charge, so I don't think free general news is disappearing any time soon."

      If nothing else, there's Yahoo!. I notice that Yahoo! carries content from LA Times and the Washington Post, among others, so I'm able to access their content registration-free via Yahoo!. So that's where I've been reading the most lately -- particularly using Yahoo! news' RSS feed and a newsreader software.

      With declining readership with newspapers, along with lower-than-originally-thought payments from advertising, however -- so-called "premium" content -- the really valuable news -- will probably end up being for-pay. In other words, I think you're going to see more pay content on the web because people are abandoning dead-tree media.

      I've been involved with two pay sites. The first is financial site The Motley Fool, the second is a college sports recruiting-news site, Rivals.com. I think that both sites' pay services illustrate really well the extremes of the pay-site model.

      In the former case, The Motley Fool made their bulletin boards into part of their pay service. Their actual home-generated content remained free. This struck me as being a horrible decision, because the value of the boards was provided by the posters who contributed information and advice on the boards -- they were, in fact, trying to reduce traffic to their boards. If I'm going to be contributing value to their boards, I should get paid for it -- not the other way around. I found the move to pay offensive, and quit.

      Rivals.com (specifically texas.rivals.com) is the opposite story. I am a college football junkie, and Geoff Ketchum, who runs the Texas Longhorns board is a true journalist -- the kind who actually works for a living, rather than just barfing up whatever PR he happens to receive or reporting every rumor that he hears as fact. For just five bucks a month, I get information that no one else gets, and I typically hear about the big stories long before anyone else does. There are two regular columns each week that are stuffed with things nobody else knows about, plus constant reports on the latest high-profile recruits, where they want to go, etc.

      Jesus, I sound like an ad. Well, it's because I'm very happy to spend the money for the content, because the content has value -- I can't get it anywhere else -- and it's something very specific that interests me.

      So, the summary of what I'm trying to say here is this: The move to pay is necessary for some folks who either can't afford to go to print, or who are losing income from print publications, because the internet ad model has proven to be not very good. And people will pay for sites that generate valuable content, but they won't pay just to participate in "communities."

      To me, it actually seems like an improvement.
    • The BBCs website is really fantastic, so much so that other news media moguls in the UK are trying to get it shut down, saying the BBC overstepped their mark. When I last spoke to someone there, they had somewhere in the region of 2 million individual web pages within the bbc.co.uk domain, which is a fair amount. Not content with this publically available information, it also provides specialised content to other UK broadband providors (pipex, easynet etc).

      THe BBC also provide peering and transit to a l
      • When I last spoke to someone there, they had somewhere in the region of 2 million individual web pages within the bbc.co.uk domain

        At least 2.4 million indexed by Google! [google.com]
      • The BBC is fantastic. It has a much more broad range of stories and there seems (to me at least) to be a lot less bias in their stories. And there are NO ADS! (I am guessing that the cost of running the site is covered by TV licenses, though since I'm in the US, I'm not sure on this.) I can't see why having a resource like that is a bad thing ... ... though when they write "Nasa" and not "NASA" it gets me wanting to poke them a bit. :)

  • This is where things are headed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rueba ( 19806 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:13PM (#8352082)
    I have definitely been noticing this trend and I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't seem there is very much I can do about it apart from abandoning some web sites that are not too essential.

    For example, I haven't gone to www.washingtonpost.com [washingtonpost.com] since they introduced their new "super-nosy" registration policy (and I used to go there almost every day). On some other web sites I give fake information(OK this doesn't really solve anything, but dammit I am not going to let them win...)

    In any case, I can easily forsee the day when there won't be any "free" news sites that do not require registration. Except the Onion [theonion.com]. There will always be the Onion. (Knock on Wood...).

    • Re:This is where things are headed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:35PM (#8352278)
      If you weren't providing revenue for them, why should they care if you stop visiting?

      It's nice to pretend that all these sites exist solely for our benefit, but they don't. They have to make money somehow, and if advertising doesn't cut it, how many other options are there?

      I appreciate sites like CNN, Yahoo, etc letting me view their content free. But I don't feel that I'm entitled to their content, because, of course I'm not.

      • Re:This is where things are headed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Uber Banker ( 655221 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:59PM (#8352419)
        I agree. We have no 'right' to get free news and analysis. Providing content takes money - staff have to be paid, bandwidth have to be paid for. If I think I will get a quality service then I am happy to pay (more happy to get it free, but do not expect that)... I am more than happy to provide basic information about myself as an appreciative reader for 'free but registration required' outlets, as I derive a benefit from the service.

        Do not expect to get something for free - those places that do benevolently give out information are totally great, but people making a living out of journalism, publishing, etc can't be expected to work for free. Infact those places that do give out information for 'free' deserve more scrutiny (IMHO) as they are more likely to have vested interests in info they give out (e.g. a free nutrition website advocating the Atkins diet which is funded by 'Animal Fat Farmers of America' or a survey of computer security sponsored by Microsoft).

    • Re:This is where things are headed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:39PM (#8352305)
      The worst thing about all of this is all of the accounts and passwords to keep track of and the information you need to disclose to "register" on various sites. What somebody should do is come up with an standardized anonymous way to pay for things, just like a prepaid phone card.

      If such a system were in place, you could buy a prepaid micropayment card at any store or online, and enter it's number in your browser. Then you could anonymously pay for content on any site without revealing anything about your identity, or worrying about what info some scheme like Passport is passing along to them.

      The sites really need to drop this whole idea about needing information about their customers. I would be happy to pay a fair price for information if they were happy to take my money and leave it at that. If they are in business to make money all they need is to get paid, they don't need to know who I am. Newspapers and magazines sold at news stands have worked with this business model for centuries; I don't know why it can't be applied to online content.

      • Re:This is where things are headed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tornado2258 ( 627232 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:49PM (#8352367)
        Newpapers on paper spend money on finding out what their reader demographic is and which stories people like and want more of etc. With printed papers this is done by doing surveys of random people and hoping that they are indicative of the whole. Marketing people get a warm and fuzzy feeling when they realised that the internet allows them to get information about everyone that uses the service.

        How this plays out in the future is up to the public at large. If most people aren't actually worried about what information they give away and how much the sites track them then the companies will track them. If most people instead choose the anonymous options then those demanding info will disappear.

        I can't decide myself which I prefer. On one hand I'm not particularly worried that the people writing the news know which stories I actually read, cause this will mean that there is more chance of future stories being of interest to me. But on the other hand I sometimes have to don my tinfoil hat and worry about what kind of things they might be infering from my choice in news stories or which jokes I read etc nad who they might share this info with.

        • How this plays out in the future is up to the public at large. If most people aren't actually worried about what information they give away and how much the sites track them then the companies will track them. If most people instead choose the anonymous options then those demanding info will disappear.

          It's not a choice between anonymous or nosy sites, it's a choice between sites that benefit from personalization and those that don't. It may take the bottom feeder portion of the marketing population a wh

      • That's probably the only way it could work outside the u.s. and europe. Even I (in my little thatch hut on the beach with a plastic bag on my computer to keep it dry) could deal with it.
      • " The worst thing about all of this is all of the
        accounts and passwords to keep track of and the
        information you need to disclose to "register" on
        various sites. What somebody should do is come up
        with an standardized anonymous way to pay for
        things, just like a prepaid phone card."

        The micropayment company then becomes the information source and habits can be tracked during the life of the card. If the micropayment card is linked to a credit card, they have you.
        • That could be an issue. However, ideally you would have the option of buying a card with cash, and the card issuer would conduct itself more like a genuine financial institution than a sleazy spyware company. (I do realize that this is probably more than can be hoped for in the real world, though.)

      • A Patriot Act no-no (Score:5, Interesting)

        by coltrane679 ( 118528 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @09:11PM (#8353165)
        "What somebody should do is come up with an standardized anonymous way to pay for things, just like a prepaid phone card."

        Sorry, no longer allowed in the US--I'm not joking. There used to be some options like this, but now they all have to be verified with a SS number (aptly named for the future, perhaps).

        In a country where the definition of "financial institution" has been expanded to include casinos and pawn shops (and thus allow warrantless examination of their customer records), anonymity in commerce is a rapidly dying right. And if you demand it, well, then what kind of evildoer are you--a terrorist, child porn addict or drug dealer?
    • I can easily forsee the day when there won't be any "free" news sites that do not require registration.

      Depends on what you call "news". I can easily forsee the day when mass media no longer controls the definition of "news"; this will be the day when only a dozen users log into subscription-based news sites to view the half-rational biased thoughts from a has-been writer musing on some female musician who exposed herself on national tv, whereas others will go to the FREE sites (probably a blog of some
    • I know they are trying it, but I don't think it will work in general.

      I think its going to work for sites which are money related, such as financial news. But its not going to work otherwise.

      News is empty these days, nobody realizes how empty until you are made to pay for it.

      Just let the cable company start sub-bundling channels and see how quickly several channels find no viewership...
    • For example, I haven't gone to www.washingtonpost.com since they introduced their new "super-nosy" registration policy (and I used to go there almost every day). On some other web sites I give fake information(OK this doesn't really solve anything, but dammit I am not going to let them win...)

      Ah, big deal, just give the Post your email and information.

      If I recall correctly (it took several attempts to provide the information, as I had to simultaneously disable three layers of cookie eaters, in the browse
    • I have definitely been noticing this trend and I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't seem there is very much I can do about it apart from abandoning some web sites that are not too essential.

      Actually, you could do something else. Start up your own site and provide your own content for free. Nothing's stopping you from doing that besides money and your own motivation.

      Of course, doing that is expensive and you probably aren't in a position to lose money every month just to benefit others people. Not t
    • This is not a flame -- it's a general query -- I signed up for a washingtonpost account today after not having gotten around to it for months. The registration didn't seem all that nosy -- the NYT's is worse (not that I put in any personal info they could trace, and they got the spambait yahoo address, not one I actually read). Why do people feel WP's reg is intrusive?

      "Bad" is demanding all kinds of stuff like salary info, addresses, yadda yadda ... while the WP asked about occupation (I chose "Other" for

  • you know (Score:5, Informative)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:13PM (#8352086) Homepage
    Lexis-Nexis has been doing this for a long time, and making a nice profit. It's not new.

  • Today's wild business idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:13PM (#8352089) Homepage Journal
    For those of us who hate to spend gazillions of dollars on newspaper subscriptions, and want to get the content on paper for free online, only to watch publishers lock up their content to require payment yet again, I have a proposal.

    Just step away from free, and turn it into cheaper. For example, you give xyz newspaper $10 as a deposit. At any time you can opt to buy today's online content of that newspaper (or other online content) for $0.50. It gets you the rights to the entire content for the day, and maybe even a PDF you can download and read/print offline. This way you don't pay outrageous prices for subscriptions to memberships and read what you want. Thoughts?

    • Re:Today's wild business idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:16PM (#8352116)
      Or, you could just go to the library and read the paper for free.
      • As a poor poor news-junkie I do what's traditionally fashionable for junkies...I let my affluent friends with buttloads of disposable income turn me on to news. Just like someone who was notorious for saying it,

        "I could never buy drugs, I get them for free."

        To the infotainment moguls I say, "Bring it on, gentrify your publications and hold them out of reach, lock them up behind SSL and demographics siphons and penalize those who don't want FLASH ads or irritating popups by locking those users out too. Mak
    • I just wait for the local paper to have subscription special for $10 to $20 for a one year subscription. When it is about to run out, you subscribe to another special from a different company.
    • um. What next, you have to give CNN your credit card number and pay a nickle everytime you want to watch it on tv? PLus have to pay cable, plus have it still filled with ads?
    • The major problem I see is that when something has been free for so long, people will be hesitant to pay for it. The perceived value is already zero. Imagine if Microsoft started charging $2 for Internet Explorer. No one would go for that.
    • Oh, you mean like the CSMonitor's Treeless Edition [csmonitortreeless.com]?

      I subscribed for a while, but the only way to get to it was by email link, no bookmarking. That annoyed me. It may have changed, I wouldn't know.

    • Re:Today's wild business idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, yeah, and not just newspapers.

      Porn, music, research articles, cable tv, etc.; the problem with subscriptions is that I may only really want one or two items from a particular vendor throughout the entire year. It's hard to justify spending $10 for two items out of thousands possible. It also allows me to sample before I buy.

      iTunes really has the right idea concerning this. Pay as you go, no commitments. It also gives the vendors a reason to keep the content diverse.

      That I've noticed, the prices
    • ..phone accounts in the UK. The Business model is already proven here. Might actually work tekiegreg!

    • I think that the online subscription business model stands a chance.

      The thing that I have difficulty with is the price point. As your suggestion alludes to, there are those who are going to want a 'one-off' for an article. But given the choice between not getting the article or a full subscription, people will probably spend a quarter to xerox it at the library the next time they are there.

      Your suggestion points out the problem most people have with online subscriptions. A regular magazine subscription c
  • what money would a newspaper make from giving their whole content for free on the net - it has been proved that advertising on websites is certainly not the best method of advertising available! so obviously as paper gets less and less popular, they are going to have to move to online editions almost exclusively and why not make people pay for the latest news - maybe it's not right from the consumers point of view, but as a business it's all the newspapers can do! Tim

    • Re:well it makes sense.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by yelvington ( 8169 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @09:10PM (#8353161) Homepage
      Nonsense. You're making stuff up.

      The facts are these:

      Advertising on newspaper-operated local Web sites is up substantially. For example NYT Digital recently reported a 42.3 percent increase [corporate-ir.net], compared with a 1 percent overall growth rate for the New York Times Company. Most major newspaper companies' digital divisions are in the black and some are turning operating margins in the 30 to 40 percent range. The ad-supported news model is a proven winner.

      Paid access on newspaper sites has been an overall failure. The Wall Street Journal is an anomaly, with need-to-know business information sold to people who are on an expense account. The Borrell group [borrellassociates.com] has an extensive report on the subject and Neil Budde, [neilbudde.com] former publisher of WSJ.com, will be happy to consult with any newspaper contemplating the paid-access route -- generally to counsel them against the idea. Paid content works only in some very specific niche situations, not for general local-interest newspapers.

      Registration has nothing to do with paid access. Newspaper companies are deploying registration systems for analysis and ad targeting, not as a scheme to slip in a charge-for-access model. Registration data allows ads to be delivered based on geographic and demographic information. That's especially important to newspapers with major out-of-market traffic -- such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian (UK). When the Media Guardian institutes registration next month they'll be able to deliver ads that are intended for UK readers only to UK readers, and not waste advertisers' money delivering them to me.

      If you think for just a minute about the questions being asked by the new Washington Post registration system you'll realize they're designed to facilitate targeted business advertising on the site, which traditionally has sold itself only to local DC advertisers.

  • Content Blog (Score:4, Informative)

    by vpscolo ( 737900 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:18PM (#8352131) Homepage
    Worth looking at <A href="http://www.paidcontent.org/">paidcontent.org </a> which give a 3rd party view of subscription services

    rus

  • Ironic (Score:4, Funny)

    by DeadSea ( 69598 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:18PM (#8352132) Homepage Journal

    Does anybody else find it odd that to read about wsj.com bragging about its subscriber base, you have to spend a $59 registration?
  • You think this is the latest news story on slashdot, but subscribers can beat the rush and see the real newest story early!

  • i don't mind (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:18PM (#8352136) Homepage
    i think online media is cheaper than the printed media, and more environment friendly as well. and if if we have to pay a little bit to get online news, it is not that bad.
    you can buy e-books and audio books [audible.com] that are cheaper than printed books. on itunes [itunes.com] you can buy radio show, to listen at your leisure
    So, what is wrong with paying a little bit money to read the news that your own leisure

    • You thought wrong (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      " i think online media is cheaper than the printed media,"

      I think that the sky is green, but facts sometimes mess that up.

      NY Times and Wash Post are cheaper now, only because they're free. But in actual fact, when you subscribe to the washington post, if you buy Sundays at a discount, then the rest of the week is free. So you pay somewhere around $50 a year (more or less) for the wash post.

      But wait...when you get the print edition, the sunday paper has ads and coupons that can easily pay the cost of th

  • News and Micropayments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrystalCut ( 307381 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:18PM (#8352140) Homepage Journal
    This is where I see micropayments being very valuable. Few users are going to want to pay $20.00 a month, if they only want to read 10% of the content on a news site. Every time I access a news site and am prompted to give over $5.00 for each archive article, I flinch. That's just too much.As a long time (and satisfied) Pay Pal user, I love using Pay Pal to submit small payments, but so far few online merchants accept such payments.

    As someone who reads through news every single day of the year, I'd love an option to offer small payments for content that I specifically want. If I was paying $5.00 for each news article I convert to a PDF, I'd be broke in no time. Slashdot has talked about micropayments [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org].

    • Micropayments create an incentive not to read as many articles. If you're not sure whether something is worth reading, you'll tend to take a look at it when the marginal cost (in money anyway) is zero, but you'll tend to not look when you have to pay for it (even a small amount). Since the marginal cost to the publisher of providing an article to someone is zero, this leads to less overall value. Publishers and users both are better off having a small fee for unlimited use for some period of time ($1 for
  • I've been a happy subscriber for many months. Their coverage of everything Linux is unsurpassed! Subscribe to LWN [lwn.net].
  • It's a nice way for higher-quality pubs to maintain their offerings, but they should expect some heat over the equal-access problem that paid content creates. If it's a choice between existing and not existing, then a quality site should offer subscriptions. But neither time nor bandwidth are free (unless you use a trojan to hijack some Windows box), and paid content is a fair way to get a return on an investment.

    Still, just as there's a movement to give net access to low-bandwidth users in developing c [linuxjournal.com]

  • The value must be there first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnakeStu ( 60546 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:23PM (#8352177) Homepage

    Before a content site decides to put up any kind of barrier to getting the content, they'd better make sure the value will drive people past the barrier.

    An example comes to mind in the local news scene... I used to visit one of the Web sites for a local TV station as a way to keep informed about local events. Their content was "pretty good" -- better, as I saw it then, than their competitors. Then they started requiring registration... it was free, but they wanted your personal info. I turned away and haven't gone back -- the value of their content was not sufficient to push me past the privacy barrier.

    One of the reasons I've been hesitant to use any revenue-related barriers in the Open Music Registry is because I don't think the value would support it, for the site as it is now. So, until I have the time to build in features that people might pay for (if that ever happens), I have to hope for donations and ad click-throughs.


  • Ok so I don't object. Depending upon the site, these companies better come up with something that no one else can before I subscribe to them. Simple news? [newsnow.co.uk] Oh no I can get it for free from so many other sources. Now considering sites like Washington Post, and Guardian allow other sites to mirror their content, why would I pay for the Washpost, if I could find a free site posting their very own content?

    Again not to be too critical, but it's the same with newspapers if you think about it. Should I buy today's

    • on both economic and environmental grounds, i applaude filching someone else's paper. how often have i done that at work, in a coffee shop, or even (ahem) liberating one from the "trash." especially the Times. :)

      now, we can all read these things for free at the library -- is there not a place here for the library to offer its patrons pooled access to these newspapers? you then eliminate wealth discrimination and a host of other problems; the publications can assure themselves of steady revenue. there a

  • Sites will learn true value of what they offer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:27PM (#8352217) Homepage
    I think that this was inevitable. Sites saw other sites raking in the money with subscriptions, so they will inevitably attempt to do it. However, not all content is created equal. There are many sites that attempt to charge a premium for content *cough*IGN*cough* when the content is not worth it, because a million other websites off the same or better for free.

    However, I'm sure many websites could get away with it either because their target audience has the cash to drop on it, or they need the service bad enough. Like it or not, I'm sure the NYTimes could make their site subscription only (or only if you have a regular paper subscription with them) and people would still sign up.

    My grudge with IGN is that they decided to charge for their bad reviews and images/movies. There are god knows how many other gaming sites out there offering the same things for free. And lets face it, gamers don't usually have money to drop on a website subscription (they'd rather put it towards a game).

    Some websites decide not to be greedy and have found a near perfect balance of content vs. price. Take www.Freshlymixed.com for example. An excellent site and the best site to download Essential Mixes from Radio 1 on (among other mixes). For signing up for free, you get to use bit torrent and download the three most recent Essentail Mixes, but only on weekends. For paying like, $2/month you get access to their archive whenever you want. There are other payment options too. They decided not to be greedy, and guess what? They're probably making MORE money because of it! There will always be that certain point where if you charge more, you'll make less money because you'll simply get less customers.

  • So many registrations (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cnb ( 146606 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:31PM (#8352244)
    So paid is the way to go but so many registrations, so many usernames, so many passwords and so much content left unread.

    It would be neat if there could be a single authentication protocol where one could use the same user/pass (a passport.com like open source or free authentication method) which worked anywhere and which one could tie to any micropayment based payment gateway to read and possibly OWN (in case you visit later) any content you bought at any of the sites.

  • Paid content (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:36PM (#8352281) Journal
    is just going to widen the "digital divide". This might work great in europe/u.s., where you all have your fancy electronic bank accounts, but us broke MOFO's? in countries where there is no infastructure for this will be further pushed aside. I guess I'll be depending on the "pirates" to copy some info to a free site somewhere.

  • I pay my ISP $60 per month. That is for the right to quickly access other sites who want my money. Just this week I used a mozilla plugin called stumbleupon with is supposed to lead you to the "best of the net" but it just sent me to more pages asking for money.

    My !!!Guess!!! is that it will come down to ISPs. One will offer XY and Z services for the price of connection while the other only offers X and Y.

    Poo Poo all you want, but look at the basics. Pretty much everyone goes to a one of a handful of port

    • AOL (Score:2)

      by Hungus ( 585181 )
      You are basically talking about AOL which in (now don't laugh) addition to being an ISP (I told you not to laugh) is also a content provider. You can for some fee access their "exclusive" content from non aol-connections.

  • Nosir *I* won't be participating (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saint Stephen ( 19450 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:39PM (#8352303) Homepage Journal
    Untily relatively recently, I enjoyed Google News. I broke down and did the free reg. at NYTimes, but then Washington Post and the LA Times started it: now Charlotte.com and Bum-Fouck Iowa are getting in on the act.

    I simply refuse to read those papers, and have basically stopped using Google News. When will these people learn that the only reason we use their content is the pleasure of it -- and we aren't stupid. When they try to turn us into cattle or eyeballs, we bolt.

    I fully expect everything that doesn't suck now to start sucking soon. On a related note, I am planning to cancel my cable soon. It will soon be $60/month for just basic cable.

    I just won't watch TV. It will suck, but I will adjust. I am not a slave.
    • You have stopped using Google News because the NYtimes charges money? This makes no sense. Have you not noticed the green "and related" link under every header on google?
      If there is a story you want to read in the Google news headlines, but the link goes to a register site, just click the "and related" link and find usually hundreds of the same story at other sites that are free.

      Thats the beauty of Google News. You can read the spin on the same and similar stories from lots of different sites to get a br
      • Yeah but have you noticed how many of the frontpage are subscription now? The ones that aren't, aren't as good.

        Once you have the facts you want some analysis. A higher proportion of those are going subscription, which means I simply will lose the desire to be informed.

        These systems are not static: the eyeball pushes back on the provider.

    • Re:Nosir *I* won't be participating (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deacon ( 40533 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:54PM (#8352761) Journal
      I just won't watch TV. It will suck

      Actually, after you get over the extended and intense withdrawl, it will be great.

      If you want to wean yourself off slower, you can go to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx [antennaweb.org]

      And find out what you can get over-the-air in your area.

      For the first few weeks, you will find yourself sitting down in front of where the tv used to be and reaching for the remote.. Over and over again.

      Sort of like the way a dog salivates when it hears the ring of a bell, or the way a rat pushes the bar when the light goes on it its cage..

      I really had a lot of good laughs at myself when I saw how strongly I had been conditioned to watch TV every night. I had assumed that I thought for myself, was not a sheep, blah blah...

      But when I found my hand reaching for the (missing) remote of its own will, like the unthinking way you would scratch an itch on your ear..

      It was funny, in a scary sort of way.

      The other thing you will have to get used to is the intense, condescending *ANGER* that a few people will flame you with when you tell them you don't watch TV.

      Speaking of which, I see you have been modded down from a 5 to a 2 just in the time I have been previewing and editing this post

      Just the price you have to pay for resisting our TV overlords, I guess.

      :^)

  • Fark.com is a good example... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HenryFjord ( 754739 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:42PM (#8352322) Homepage
    ..of where a paid content system and a free content system work flawlessly together. Internet users tend not to invest in a service/website unless they have an incentive. In fark.com's case they offer access to all submitted links and no ads. All in all the best way to entice people to pay for content is to give them a reaonable amount of functionality under a free membership. If they enjoy your free content many will tend to become paid subscribers later on.

  • purchasable content (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Borg453b ( 746808 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:43PM (#8352326) Homepage Journal
    It's been said before, but I think it's important to stress the necessity of a pay per content / service model.

    Most classical online ads; whether banners or popups don't pay off, and while some people still live with the mindset of free information for all, there's a limit to the quality and quantity you can produce without profits.

    A feasible business model:

    It's necessary to reorganize and produce quality information in such a way that it separates itself from the bulk and becomes valuable. When you do that, you can charge people for it - and you'll need to, because quality content requires professionals [whether journalists, consultants, counselors, programmers etc. ].

    What about ads?

    I used to be doing online adverts, and while advertising won't disappear, I am convinced that it will change it's nature, moving towards an interval-between-content model like the one we have on TV. As a user you'll be able to pay to avoid them in available subscription packages:

    As web-content becomes more media intensive, in terms of streaming - I suspect we will see complex interactive adverts targeted at users based on profiles. I foresee "pay-per-view" media-service packages that range from the-premium-no-ads-in-movies, news, games-offer, to "free" content with ad-intervals.

    What are your thoughts on/experiences with current e-payment models? (paypal, micropayments etc).

    As an entrepreneur, I'd appreciate any info.


    Finally - to quote the blues brothers: What do ya want for nothing? Rubber buiscuit?
  • Is someone with a single-sign on system (ala Passport or Liberty) will try and sell a "meta" account, that gives you access to multiple papers ..
    • Yep. Right now, there are three major single-sign-on systems. Microsoft Passport which works on the Microsoft owned networked of sites and a few other places, AOL ScreenName which works on all Time Warner web properties and the free AIM service, and Yahoo who reposts content from many providers into the yahoo.com domain name. All three these networks have news portals, a free e-mail service, useless games to play, and an IM tool.

      The big players are already lined up just waiting for this to catch on...

  • The Gate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:49PM (#8352368) Homepage Journal
    Washingtonpost.com and Media Guardian UK both announced recently they will require registration. This may be just the beginning of a mad rush to drop a registration gate on the major news sites.
    No, if they were going to start charging, they'd just go ahead and do it. Registration has other purposes, mainly to show advertisers that you have a large and diverse audience.

    Some newsppaper sites have indeed started charging for some of their content [calendarlive.com]. But I don't think that this means a shift back to the subscription model, which never did generate enough revenue to matter. More likely, they want to raise the apparent value of content they syndicate to other newspapers.

    I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll say it again: online content won't succeed until you can pay for it as you consume it. Yes, I mean Micropayments. Lots of pundits have fancy reasons why micropayment can't work, but nobody really knows, because nobody's really tried it.

    • "... mainly to show advertisers that you have a large and diverse audience"

      you know, they can just trace there readers IP Address back to the ISP, and use that to get demographics.
      • All they get from that is the name of the ISP and maybe the user's general location. Anything more specific, they have to look in the ISP records -- which are not that accessible.
    • I was just about to make the same comment: registration does not mean paid-for content.

      Slashdot, for example, has hundreds of thousands of registered users, but not all of them buy subscriptions.

  • Not necessarily *more* profit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:51PM (#8352374) Journal
    I have a hunch what we're seeing, especially in the case of the WSJ, is that people that previously subscribed to the print version of the paper are migrating to the online content for convenience.

    The real question is can they attract new customers to pay for online content, as opposed to shifting existing customers from one type of media to another.

    Dan East
    • The print edition's paid subscription number has held steady, compared to other papers like the NYT that have seen their paid subscriptions decline. While the online edition's numbers have soared, it was not at the expense of the print edition. This is because a lot of dead-tree subscribers are happy to have both as they complement each other.

      Overall, the WSJ's total paid subscriptions -- online + print -- have increased. This number (2,091,062) excludes deep discounted subscriptions (under 25% of paper e

  • mandatory subscriptions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kkirk007 ( 304967 ) <kkirk007@yahoo.cNETBSDom minus bsd> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:55PM (#8352396)
    Just a quick note about that high subscriber number...my school forces all of its business students to subscribe to the WSJ. True, we get it at a discounted rate, but I hardly ever use it...certainly not enough to justify the fee.

    This kinda reminds me of AOL's inflated subscription numbers because they were giving out free months to people who'd call to cancel.

    I don't think mandatory/discounted/student/group subscriptions should be counted in this figure.

  • /. doing its part (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:56PM (#8352404)
    With daily repeated references to NYT, and almost as frequent references to WashPost, /. story submitters are certainly doing there part to help out the big media cartels.

    No problem. The cartels can't ignore Google. And I can get their stories through Google News. Better yet, virtually none of the media cartels are original anymore. They exist as mere web content providers for AP, UPI, Reuters. Plus a few local/capitol reports thrown in to throw the scent off. The good part about this is if any of the registration sites regurgitate a news story from one of the wires, it is also picked up by thousands of regional and local news sites, the vast majority of which don't require registration. The same goes for the few original "news" pieces they report on. The thousands of other sites pick it up for their local editions, and the content is still available without registering.

    Google News is your friend. And the friend of freedom, by freeing information, instead of attempts to control information as it comes out of NYT, WashPost, and others.

    And WashPost doesn't render in my browser correctly anyway. The main column is still offset about 800 pixels to the right, forcing me to scroll over.

    The only real informational value coming from the NYT and the WashPost anyway is to document the bias of the two outlets, made easier when comparing their headlines, first paragraphs, and top of fold stories against the rest of the media outlets on Google News.

    Registration? No biggie. Go here [google.com] (and read the same story from different sources) for a more balanced view.

    Some /. readers will always opt for the blue pill. Some will wake up. Which are you?
    • Mr. Coward (may I call you Noel?) raises a good point about alternate sources of news and perspective. One of the things NYT doesn't get is that, by putting up roadblocks to its content, it is losing influence in the broader public. When it's a hassle to go to their site, and there are other sites to which we can go, we don't go to their site--and that costs them influence in how we see the news, which ultimately diminishes their brand's value and (at some point not far down the road) their bottom line.

      I

  • On behalf of John Q. Public (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What I object to is news organizations that gather information in the name of the public good or the "public's right to know," then put up barriers to public access to that information.

    Which is it, guys? If you want to use my name to make your bones, then you gotta share the benis.

  • When will magazines follow? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by strider3700 ( 109874 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:01PM (#8352432)
    I go out and spend around $20 a month on magazines, usually cars or 4x4's. I've enjoyed the magazine format for years now except for a couple of things.

    If you miss on issue and they have a project broke up over multiple months it costs a lot to back order a copy and it is a hassle.

    After getting 2 or 3 magazines a month for a few years you end up with a huge pile that I want to keep the information in but I don't really want to devote part of my library to.

    I see some subscription based websites that mimic the magazine format but none of the big names are doing it and non of the small guys post up as much as I'd get in a magazine.

    I'd be willing to pay for an online subscription to something like SCC so long as it has every bit on information thats in the printed version. This includes the Ads. I hate popups, but I do browse the parts ads on a regular basis so make sure they're in there. Hell charge the advertiser more and make the ads a link the companies site, that would be useful.

    I also want the archive from the day you go online accessible. I won't accept just being able to get this months and thats it.

    Everything also has to be in a standard format. PDF or HTML is fine, some encrypted format that is windows only and requires a special viewer and the deal is off.

    What I'm not willing to pay money for is hacked down versions that show 3 out of 10 stories.
  • I have some insight into a NYTRG paper and have seen this issue from both sides of the fence.

    One of the major issues is management (aren't they always getting in the way). Many papers are still run by people who have no idea how to utilize the internet. When a paper such as the WSJ makes an announcement about subscription revenue, the managers say, "Works for them, so it should work for us, let's fire up the registration servers!"

    Unfortunately things that play at a major paper such as the WSJ or the NYT
  • This may be just the beginning of a mad rush to drop a registration gate on the major news sites.

    It'll be a mad rush when and only when the Onion requires a subscription.

  • churn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:09PM (#8352485) Homepage
    I run a web site that catalogs free books and accepts user-submitted reviews (see my sig). What I mainly notice is that there's a huge amount of churn. Many authors put their books on the web for free at first (e.g., a professor who lets his students download his textbook), but then when they get a publishing contract, the publisher makes them take it down. It also works in reverse: sometimes when a book goes out of print, the rights revert to the author, and the author sets it free. It's very different from the software world, where a project hardly ever crosses the border that separates free from unfree.

    At least in the world of free books (as opposed to free newspaper articles, which I don't know much about), I think the general trend is toward more freedom -- my catalog has certainly grown greatly over the last few years. I think it's a lot like Linux invading the desktop: when the percentages are small, it's easy to get double-digit growth in a year.

    It is frustrating to see free stuff go away, though. That's why I think it's so important for people to put their writing under a Creative Commons license. Free-as-in-speech is forever. Free-as-in-beer is like the hooker who doesn't remember your name the next weekend.

  • Difference Between WSJ and Washington Post (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tabdelgawad ( 590061 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:27PM (#8352609)
    There are important differences between the services offered by the Wall Street Journal online and the Washington Post online that would allow the first to charge a subscription and the second not to. The WSJ offers relatively unique business-specific information and has no close competitors. Their news and analysis are essential to conducting business, at least in the US. By contrast, the Washington Post offers excellent coverage of general news, but with many close substitutes such as the NYT, CNN, and the BBC among others. Some of those competitors unlikely to ever charge an online subscription (CNN, BBC), so the Washington Post can't either (isn't it nice when competition works?)

    It's all about demand elasticity. The freely available NYT charges a fee to access their archived articles because those who use that service are typically involved in some research project, and their demand for information is inelastic (not too many substitutes for the NYT's extensive archives). On the other hand, The for-pay WSJ makes its editorial content available for free at opinionjournal.com, because nobody would pay to read editorials; as they say, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one.
    • "The for-pay WSJ makes its editorial content available for free at opinionjournal.com, because nobody would pay to read editorials ..."

      That's not quite right. OpinionJournal has articles not found on the WSJ and vice versa. If you go to OpinionJournal and click on the "also on the WSJ" link, you will find editorial links to articles for WSJ subscribers only.

      I for one find the WSJ editorials one of its most valuable sections -- with a lot of Pulitzers under its belt -- as do many subscribers I know. It is
      • Thanks for the correction, although the vast majority of content on OpinionJournal is free. You may be right about the reason why there are subscriber-only editorials on OpinionJournal. My guess, however, is that it's a natural way to drive some subscriptions for the WSJ. After all, it would be strange to have a free site and a paid site, and not have something to drive traffic from the one to the other.

        Many sites with a free/premium content mix do this sort of thing. I suspect that there's a tendency

  • Online publishers? You mean weblogs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nurf ( 11774 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @09:27PM (#8353248) Homepage
    I can't say I care at all about the traditional media companies locking themselves behind barriers. I only read weblogs anyway.

    I suppose it might be a self defense manoever for them - it stops them from having to look like complete idiots when some blogger points out they made something up, or spun a story beyond recognition.

    As long as you can read maybe three commercial news sources, you can can tell what all the others are saying anyway. Commercial news is designed to package and disseminate the same information to many people, rather than many different kinds of information about the same event. It's a horrible model, and it suffers particularly badly from the "who guards the guardians" syndrome.

    I have little or no respect for the traditional media, so here is one person that won't be crying if they decide to marginalise themselves.

    Some forms of paid-for news are probably worthwhile, but on the whole I can't help feeling that the weblog phenomenon is the first sign of a drastic change in how people will get their news in the future.

  • Subscription for content? REALITY CHECK (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @09:35PM (#8353295) Homepage Journal
    OK so let me just mumble for a few minutes here
    1. Must be value for money
    2. must not include advertising
    3. must not ever infringe on my privacy
    4. Must be value for money (seriously, it's worth saying several times)
    Anyone surreptitionsly following my surfing habits will see a very clear pattern emerging
    • sites with advertising filtered by my ad/popup blocker get return visits (assuming they have good content)
    • sites which successfully bypass my filters never see me again
    • sites which require me to register never see me again (unless I can screw their database, like NYTimes)
    • Sites with stuff I *really* want that I can't get elsewhere for free (or that provide significant value *over* free), I subscribe to (eg FilePlanet, paid email service, etc)
    It's surprising how difficult online content providers find understanding the most basic of facts. PISS of your customers and they won't return. The ever-more-annoying and in-your-face Advertising model just doesn't work. (Phear My Filters [proxomitron.info])

    I'm not unreasonable, I'd happily pay fair-value for good content, all I ask in return is
    • MicroPayments
    • Security
    • Privacy
    • Zero advertising
    • Value For Money
    • Value For Money
    • Value For Money (seriously, it's worth asking for several times, they're NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE)
    An example given earlier of $5 for an article isn't value for money, it's a ripoff. Even if it is "archived". Geez man, everyone who *really wanted* your article got it when it was current, additional "sales" now would have to be pure profit - your entire DeadTrees publication costs what , $5.75 a week (eg NYTimes DeadTrees Edition)? And you wanna charge me $5 an article, electronic delivery?

    How do companies who list "customer goodwill" as a line item on their company valuations balance that against actively screwing their customers (privacy violations, information-highway-robbery) and doing their best to just plain piss them off (guerilla advertising campaigns) in the online world?

  • Paying for Content (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Emperor_CA ( 629938 )
    I would have no problem paying for News and such content. My major gripe is the lack of pictures and or videos in the news content. Most online news sites rearly have any pictures associated with the news article, and when they do have one or two, they are all nice and small. If these news paper providers gave me well written articles, with decent pictures or size and quality, and give me the opertunity to setup my own "virtual news paper" I could have e-mail to me each day, I would be more than happy to pa

  • Associated press? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by techstar25 ( 556988 ) <techstar25.gmail@com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @10:30PM (#8353536) Journal
    Since it seems that so many articles are just reprints from the associated press, there will always will at least one website with a copy of the very same article for free. I say "Let them charge for subscriptions!". I'll go somewhere else. That is the beautiful thing about this crazy World Wide Web.
  • The problem with charging access is that you are under the gun to deliver great content every day without a burp. The WSJ had some great content but on many days it was just rehashing the wire feeds. Sorry, but I can get AP and Reuters elsewhere for free.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close