Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My favourite news site, The Times has started charging £2 a week, with a separate fee for the Sunday version. I don't mind paying for a service but I would rather buy the paper version if it comes down to a straight choice. Usually I will just pick one or two stories to look at in the online version but the paper version I can read at leisure and usually get much more value from. Does anyone actually pay for online news and why?
I am actually based in the UK but as the web is world wide I would like a global view of this subject. If there is a more appropriate forum please move it there, but this was the best one I could find.
My favourite news site, The Times has started charging £2 a week, with a separate fee for the Sunday version. I don't mind paying for a service but I would rather buy the paper version if it comes down to a straight choice. Usually I will just pick one or two stories to look at in the online version but the paper version I can read at leisure and usually get much more value from. Does anyone actually pay for online news and why?
I am actually based in the UK but as the web is world wide I would like a global view of this subject. If there is a more appropriate forum please move it there, but this was the best one I could find.
As long as there are countless free alternatives, the Times is kidding itself if it thinks I will pay 2 pounds for a subscription.
WSJ, The Economist and FT are generally worth the price, and NYT will probably be worth paying for next year if it's priced appropriately. I find £2 a week a bit steep for the Times, however, although it too is a wonderful paper and worth paying something for.
I thought internet sites made money by advertising on their site? Isnt that why the Facebook kid is the youngest billionaire in the world, and facebook is free. There is no way that is going to work.
The news is free everywhere, but the subscriptions access the editorial writers, which are unique to the paper. It is not unreasonable for the paper to charge a subscription for that, and many people think it a good value. Also, the Economist magazine on line is by subscription only, and that is coverage that you can't find anywhere else.
I'm able to find plenty of free news that I don't bother with any paid sites.
Plus I try to get to the library every other week and get caught up on print..a nice way to spend the afternoon..a pile of magazines and papers in a nice comfy chair
Online advertising doesn't cover the costs for most traditional news sites, especially if they are paying for full time seasoned reporters and editors working on long lead stories.
Sites like the Wall Street Journal are worth paying for if you're in the biz world/investor as you need solid analysis and breaking business news coverage. As mentioned, the Economist isn't free - nor should it be. They have excellent coverage of global business/politics/policy issues and that costs a lot of money for them to hire good people and produce top content.
On the other hand, if you just want sports scores, movie reviews or general news, that's all easy to get, for free, all over the web.
The question of what's worth paying for depends on your needs. Are you fine with the free stuff or are you willing to pay a little bit extra to get information that's not so easily duplicated?
On the one hand, the Internet has made it a lot easier to get info. that was once reserved for the media. My local paper has a restaurant critic that picks one place a week to cover, in a city of 5,000 eateries. At best, he can only cover 52 a year. I trust his opinion, but there are now dozens of sites with an active audience also constantly reviewing the bulk of those 5,000 places. He can't compete with the scale. On the flip side, this news outlet is also paying reporters to sit through horribly boring local city govt. meetings, cover school issues, investigate very local public issues, candidates during elections, etc. That can't be done with a national site, nor can it generate the page views/ads on the local level to support his/her wage. So I fear we're on the edge of losing a layer of reporting because most aren't willing to pay for it - even though local decisions are often the ones that effect us most.
In other words, most of us wont blink at paying a few bucks a week for a single beer. Isn't it worth paying the same for good content? Or at least helping support the 3rd estate - our watchdog?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
