In an article by The New York Times, they announced that in 2011 they would start charging readers for certain amounts of content on NYTimes.com. They divided users into occasional users and frequent users. This proposed system would not charge for a couple articles being read by a person here and there. However, daily readers would be required to pay to continue to read the articles on their website.
Most comments about this article were negative and a large amount of people said that they would simply read the news elsewhere. Although, a few people accepted the fact that they will have to pay for this service in the future. Many news companies have been successful with charging for some online content such as The Wall Street Journal and Newsday.
Every newspaper seems to have websites that deliver news online for free nowadays. I think that as more people turn from paper to online most companies will need to charge for news. It would be interesting to investigate the approaches that local newspaper companies are taking toward this problem of decreasing subscriptions due to the internet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(68)
-
▼
January
(65)
- Solar Powered Airplane
- Low-tech radios connect some Haitians
- Decreasing Mortgage Rates
- Congress approves tax deduction for Haiti contribu...
- Sticky Pedals for Toyota Means Big Recalls
- It seems that cell phones have obtained a more imp...
- Starbucks sees its profits triple
- Billionaires of Basketball
- Google's Big 4Q
- Gold Buying Companies not a Good Deal
- Japanese Airline Company Caught in a Buyout Battle
- Lincoln City is Green
- China Economy Seeing Fast Growth
- Oregon Unemployment Rate Still 11 Percent
- Facebook in Prineville
- Expanding Wind Power for the Eastern U.S.
- Kraft Buyout of UK Chocolate Angers Krafts Largest...
- Sweden Teaches Banks Responsibility
- A Country on Crutches
- Comcast and DirecTV Agree on FCC Ruling
- Too Much Help? There is such a thing
- Cyber attack in China
- Starbucks Sees Large Gains in a Poor Economy
- Loss of purchasing power
- New York Times Website willing to charge its readers
- Larger Royalties for Amazon's Digital Publications
- Auto Industry Forsees Job Increase
- Oregon Unemployment Increases to 11%
- Less Known Advertisers Taking Over Super Bowl
- Wells Fargo Optimistic
- Credit Card Companies Find Loopholes in New Laws
- Trader Joe's Creates New Jobs
- Smartphones to Take Over
- Nike and Education Unite!
- Renovation to Oregon State Even in Times of Recession
- China's booming economy
- NY Times to Charge for On-line Articles
- Global Warming Affecting Farmers Around the World
- The battle between Apple and Google
- The Future of Written News?
- YouTube Introduces Film Rentals
- Smoking Can Hurt Your Chances With a New Job
- Starbucks Profits Triple
- Solving our Health Care Problems
- Haiti Earthquake Relief: an Alternative Way to Help
- Internet Search Privacy
- Cell phone distraction causes one in four US car c...
- Too Much Media Concentration?
- USC Coaching switch
- Oregon hospital costs hit $7.5 billion a year
- E Bikes May Be Quick Fix
- Facebook can Hurt Your Chance of Employment
- New Wilsonville Fred Meyer will incorporate housin...
- Tech Savvy Business Vs. Main Street Business
- Kraft Must Increase It's Cadbury Takeover Offer
- Oregon Hospitals Rising Costs
- Detroit hopes
- Farms May Be More White Than Green
- Google Threatening to Leave China Due to Cyber-Attack
- China's Economic Success has Many Chapters Ahead
- Buildings Go Green
- Animation Industry
- Obama's Green Initiatives
- DHS Funding a Hit or Miss?
- Energy regulators up timeline for liquid gas terminal
-
▼
January
(65)
I posted about the same story. Your comment about how local news organizations will follow up on the Times experiment is interesting. The national papers will have a much broader following, and a few cents per hit could add up to a lot. A small local paper will have a smaller potential financial reward.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting is that the Times tried this before and then went back to entirely free content. I understand why they need to do this, but at the same time, I didn't pay back then, and there's a good chance I won't be paying when they make the change in 2011. I'll be waiting and watching to see how the landscape changes. It'd be great if news organizations could cover operating expenses with advertising, as the Times hoped to do. At the moment, though, advertising revenue isn't exactly going up in print OR online mediums.
ReplyDelete