QOTD: Would You Pay For Content Online?

[Onus]

[citation][nom]jhgoodwin[/nom]I would pay a subscription for *RELEVANT* news that was *AD FREE* and *TYPO FREE*. The folks here who don't buy anything have an irrelevant opinion. Only the paying consumers matter to the people choosing to engage in a business model. My guess is the model that will end up working best is a combination of ad-sponsored, and subscription. If you pay, the ads go away. Perhaps subscribers could also somehow voice their opinions of what subjects are valuable to them. Just my two cents.[/citation]

I agree. I wouldn't object to paying for content that was more valuable than all the free schlock out there, and didn't pester me with ads. I will not, however, pay for "more-of-the-same" crisis-mongering content of limited relevance, written to appeal to the lowest common denominator, by people who can't bother to use proper grammar and punctuation.

 

[Onus]

I am also a lot more likely to visit "sponsors" than "advertisers." I'm intelligent enough to realize when I need something; don't try to manufacturer a need, but if I know you support something I use and enjoy, I may very well seek you out if there is something you have that I want.

 

[bigalfantasy2004]

No way. They tried to have paid content on the internet in the mid-90s as I recall and that fizzled out for a lot of sites. The standard has been set people want free content and will expect nothing less.

Advertisement, gambling, and porn are the only ways to generate revenue on an ongoing basis. Which costs the average consumer nothing.

 

[Zenthar]

[citation][nom]From the article[/nom]if the content is of a good quality, then why shouldn't we pay for it?[/citation]Exactly ... that is why most people aren't willing to pay: they think the content delivered isn't worth paying. Most website now just deliver news, which is information without much "mental processing"; that isn't worth a penny IMO. What I want is subjects investigated, analyzed, put into context and criticized (both for and against).

 

[Guest]

Heck, I'm still using WP 5.1 Plus for DOS (which I did purchase many years ago) on a quad-core, i7-920, 12GB system with Win.7.64.RTM. A WYSIWYG GUI just isn't important for my word-processing needs. I buy new software when I NEED it -- not when it gets updated. Same goes for online content. I will pay if and only if it affects AND IMPROVES my quality of life from MY perspective. Translated: They are not likely to get a dime -- nor even a micro-payment -- out of me unless it is something that I actually need or it is something that affects my ability to prosper.

 

[g-thor]

It would depend on the content. I understand that it costs money to have good journalists doing in depth, unbiased reporting - and that I would pay for. Those who write opinion pieces (sometimes disguised as journalism)or who write to promote an agenda can post on a free blog. I don't mind paying for true, investigative journalism.

But part of what pays for those journalists is advertising. Subscriptions do not pay for a printed newspaper; advertising does. I expect that media corps. will want to transition to the web with the comfortable business model, rather than try to come up with a new model that they are not sure of. I wouldn't object to advertising, even in a paid subscription - but it had better be passive and unobtrusive. I can ignore ads in a printed paper, so I expect the same on an online newspaper. Ads that flash and expand if your mouse comes near them, etc. would not be acceptable.

I would also like to see the language level raised in this type of journalism. I once heard that the magazine/newspaper language level is set to a sixth grade vocabulary. How are people expected to increase their vocabularies with that? Include an online dictionary, or link those $25 words to a pop-up, like the double underlined ads here on Tom's, and help people improve.

Side note - I do have a paid subscription to a small newspaper and it includes the online version. As the printed version is mailed to me, I like getting to read some of the online as soon as it is published.

 

[mikepaul]

Yes.

Free has had a nice long run, but ads can't subsidize things forever.

However, it'll likely end up badly: only the sites that draw the most paying customers will survive, then those remaining sites will decide they can charge more and ad-driven sites will return in protest...

 

[purplerat]

No and it will utterly fail because there will always be free news sources. Plus how would you prevent "piracy" of news stories? What's to stop somebody from paying for a site them essentially relaying the news via a free/ad supported site? That actually sounds like a really good idea.

 

[h83]

you guys can bitch all you want, but i think it´s time for people to realise that the free internet it´s going to end sooner or late. No one can expect people to produce news and articles and not get paid for their work and advertising can only generate a part of the income, specially when we can use Google to look for the news and just skip the ads, making them useless... Internet has been free for now because it´s been supported by the "real world", at a high cost,because it´s a great way to advertise for brands and because it´s at his infancy, if people charged for internet content as soon as the internet was born, everyone would just say fuck no!!! . But as we complete the shift from paper to digital, then companies will start to charge to internet users what they have charged to people who bought the paper news, it´s a matter of time.
If i would mind paying for the news? as long as the fee wasn´t to high, not at all. And if people af money for WoW and other stuff, then they have money for this too...

 

[kittle]

mabye.

It depends on the quality of what I get. For a site with ZERO ADVERTISING - i would pay a yearly or monthly subscription.

 

[doomtomb]

LMAO, No.

I come to the internet because I get want to get my info for free. Here's what needs to happen. Businesses need to wake up and realize that the internet is the biggest public domain of free information. Use that free information they provide to sell or move their other products. Simply put, people shouldn't have to pay for information in this day and age. This is why magazine and newspapers sales have gone down because you can go to CNN or whatever and get your news on their webpage for free anyways. Duh.

 

[dark_lord69]

No one would pay for this...
Go to www. Your local TV news .com
They make money by people watching TV and there is no shortage of that. I don't see them charging anytime soon.

Local newspapers just aren't keeping up with the times, so thier pockets are tight and small. I VERY rarely buy an actual newspaper. Wait! I CAN think of one day... Thanksgiving, so I can see all of the Black Friday ads.

Yes, I'm a black friday whore is my guilty pleasure. I bought a 42" for $800 4 years ago when even $1200 was an unheard of price for that size TV.

 

[Sicundercover]

The real problem here is the News Papers are failing because they dont report the news any more. They are all opinion pieces now, and because people can get opinion on the net they no longer have a need for the news papers.

I bet if the papers went back to being non-biased they would sell a lot ore.

 

[GenKhan2]

I will not now or ever pay for online content. For example, I remember the day IGN started its subsription services a decade ago. I laughed at them then and a decade later I still get everything I want from their website empire for free. I'd say the money saved was well worth it.

I would, however, welcome the online apocalypse paid content would bring to the web. The web has needed a good cleaning (by bankruptcy) for quite some time.

 

[cybrcatter]

Only for exceptional journalism, like economist.com.
For all of the rest, no.

 

[purplerat]

[citation][nom]h83[/nom]you guys can bitch all you want, but i think it´s time for people to realise that the free internet it´s going to end sooner or late. No one can expect people to produce news and articles and not get paid for their work and advertising can only generate a part of the income, specially when we can use Google to look for the news and just skip the ads, making them useless... Internet has been free for now because it´s been supported by the "real world", at a high cost,because it´s a great way to advertise for brands and because it´s at his infancy, if people charged for internet content as soon as the internet was born, everyone would just say fuck no!!! . But as we complete the shift from paper to digital, then companies will start to charge to internet users what they have charged to people who bought the paper news, it´s a matter of time. If i would mind paying for the news? as long as the fee wasn´t to high, not at all. And if people af money for WoW and other stuff, then they have money for this too...[/citation]

TV and Radio have been doing it for decades. If anything internet news is cheaper to produce/transmit and reaches a larger audience/is more accessible. There's no reason for internet news to be charged for as long as you can get it for free on TV and radio. This is all about newspapers looking for a lazy excuse to their poor sales.

 

[particleman]

No I would not pay for content online. It would eventually end up like cable TV. No ads at first....then in the end...you are paying for ads all over your screen......and making it rather unpleasurable.

I understand the need for advertising, but at let the content be free to access. Companies will eventually get greedy and get 2 revenue streams.....the ads and the subscribers.....

-PM

 

[Mulder19]

This tactic is risky. I would imagine many online news readers read from many different sources. Let's say that Fox news begins charging to view news articles. If I only occasionally read Fox along with other sites, it wouldn't be worth subscribing to get a few stories. I would just shift to other sites. This, click by click, will kill casual traffic to their site. This seems irresponsible.

 

[zak_mckraken]

Poeple are saying "No, I won't pay a dime." simply because they're used to getting things for free. Well, guess what? Everything in life ain't free. The Gazette can't pay their reporters without revenue. Ads will no longer be a sufficent mean of revenue.

I see these times as a "transition" from paper to virtual. You used to pay 1-2$ for a newspaper. Now you can get the same content online for free or buy a newspaper for around 1$. In a couple years, you'll be used to pay 1$ for online content or go on without news.

For the times they are a-changin'.

 

[myriad46]

This is already happening where I live. There are 2 major newspapers in my area. One has had a fully functional, free website for a while (www.timesunion.com), the other had a pay site, then made it free for a few months, then decided to go back to a subscription (www.dailygazette.com). They cited as a reason, that they were not recovering their costs from the online advertising. Here's the kicker. Even if you are a paying home delivery customer, that doesn't mean you get a free online account. Classifieds and obiutuaries are still accessible without a subscription. News should be free. Bottom line.

 

[n3ard3ath]

If the information was actually real information instead of fast food, I would consider paying, but as it is, I would hardly even read this kind of brainwashing mainstream stuff even if I was being paid for doing so.

 

[chuckdalton]

no, I already pay for internet access, there will always be free news on the net so they wont get my money.

 

[Scotteq]

...provided the content is worth the price charged and not available for free elsewhere, then sure. I support people's right to make money for their efforts, after all.

 

[garyshome]

No. There is a credibility issue here. Seems that they only print the news they want you to see, and are not the watchdogs that they used to be. They spend too much effort trying to persuade their readers that black is white and white is black. Fair And Balanced. Not the editors political agenda.

 

[dirtykid]

Don't these newspapers actually make their money from advertising, and use subscription fees to cover distribution costs?

If that is the case, there is no real need to be charging for the content, they need to come up with a layout that better lends itself to that same kind of advertising. Distribution costs on a web site are much lower than putting a physical newspaper on everyone's doorstep.