QOTD: Would You Pay For Content Online?

[neiroatopelcc]

I'd rather not get news than pay to get it. I would pay for online content if the content was something other than news however. Like information beneficial to my job (assuming my boss pays), or online dlc for games etc.

 

[libraryeli]

I'd pay. People's creative works are worth money. We already get so much for nothing, and if I had to pay for a something every now and then, that's cool.

 

[webbwbb]

If people were going to pay for 'Premium' content online then the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites wouldn't be doing so well. Even if they did have a members only subscription area, I'm sure there would be a few bloggers who were members that would be willing to copy/paste the news feed onto thier blogs every morning.

 

[hoozdaar]

Are you kidding. I read a lot of news, sports, financial stuff. It's all a commodity. As long as some of it is free, I'm not paying for what is rightfully mine.

 

[hoozdaar]

Are you kidding. I read a lot of news, sports, financial stuff all throughout the day. As long as someone offers it free, I'm reading it free. Most of what we get on the web is a commodity. Very little specialty info that would be worth paying for. And this is of interest usually to a very small audience.

 

[pooflinger1]

I don't see what people bitch about. If you pay for a paper to be delivered, how is it that they are so against paying for the same content online. Now, I don't think they should charge the same price because you remove alot of overhead like printing costs, delivery costs, etc. But to charge either a similar monthy, or a reasonable per article, I don't think that that is too much to ask. Everyone wants everything for free these days. While I too like free stuff, I know that not everything is free and not to expect everything to be free. Just because it is the internet does not mean it is free.

 

[Anthelvar]

In general I say NO! I don't want my credit card billed for this. I don't want to remember a password etc. I don't want to log on to the site, I don't want to pay, at least not a lot.

If a system were in place that informed you that the site was a pay site and viewing it for the day would cost say $0.10 and I didn't have to log on or pull my credit card out, I would be okay with that.

They would have to create a system that bills the internet provider who inturn bills you through your Internet connection. THe internet service provider could verify charges by checking IP connection times.

HOWEVER, if this system spread and was used by more than just a few web sites, I would stop using it. As it could easily add up to a LOT.

 

[WyomingKnott]

I would pay for ad-free content that is of guaranteed high quality, but only if it were being sold by the original creator of that content, or by license.
I will not pay for the random crap that is all over the place.
I will not pay for links to stories that someone invested time and expertise to write, but did not get paid for.
Information may want to be free, but high-quality information requires the talents of skilled people overseen (edited and validated) by other skilled people. They do this for a living. No pay, no reason to do this, and information will come from muckrackers and ad-pushers.

I already pay for licensed music online (Rhapsody).

 

[baddad]

No!

 

[jangocat]

Nope, never. That goes against the whole spirit of the net. The whole idea is to have knowledge for anyone anywhere to use. Charging for content would just shut out a lot of poor people.

 

[hardwarekid9756]

It has to be Per-Year and around 20-30 bucks. If the content falls in that range, and it's truly worth my time, then I'm in. If it's lame content or it's more than 30 bucks a year, I'm out.

 

[redgarl]

Nope... information will always be leaked, no need to pay for it. If the market cannot hold that much news papers, why should we pay for keeping them?

By the ways, reporters are earning way more than a lot of us here.

 

[Guest]

Never.

 

[TunaSoda]

People will only pay for news online when there is no news online for free...

 

[AerieC]

For the people who are saying things like "the free internet is doomed", you're kidding yourselves.

I liken this story to the one about Blockbuster stores going under. Bloated newspapers like the New York Times and others are in trouble for a few reasons.

For one, there is almost no market entry cost for online news sources. If you have access to a computer, you can make a web page. This wasn't true in the past; newspapers required a lot of money to start up, and thus there was less competition. Larger newspapers had big advantages because they could print more papers and write more articles. Now, how many people read the ENTIRE paper. Most people are more interested in a few key areas of news (business, local, science, etc.). It may not be profitable for a large company with many employees, reporters, editors, etc. to operate solely online; the ad revenue just won't cover all of their salaries. However, a smaller group of entrepreneurs could make a website for a specific news area and get a lot of traffic that could generate enough revenue for each of them to survive on.

The internet news market is no place for bloated companies. It's for small specialty groups who can target a niche market. The sites stay free, and the news keeps flowing.

Information should be free. Long live the free internet!

 

[everygamer]

so long as free sources are available, most would not pay. the only way people might pay in quantities is if the quality was well past that of the free and/or they could provide it (delivery) in a unique way. I say let them die, some new industry will fill the void and find a way to make money off it.

 

[scryer_360]

Don't understand why it can't be done through ad revenue...

Also, I don't even get a local paper or watch local news. My news comes from yahoo and CNN. If something is happening locally like bad weather, there is weatherchannel.com or the national weather service, and for road closings I can find them on the DOT website.

 

[Kl2amer]

I would not pay. I already pay a ridiculous amount for high speed internet. To have to pay to view each site would be overkill. The route the internet is going is scary. Pay per use (vs. unlimited), pay per site, pay per story within the site, and then who knows. Advertising has always been the king of financing radio, tv, print media, and the internet. The problem with advertising on the internet is that the companies advertising want you to click on their ad, which we don't. We have ad blockers or learn to ignore 50% of the page. This is where the confusion begins and why alot of companies are limiting their advertising on the web, reducing revenue streams. I don't know about anyone else but when I see an add on TV I don't usually drop everything, run to the store, and buy the product. The advertisers need to recognize repeating ads/messages is what works and stop worrying about clicking on their silly ad. In other words calm down and don't expect the internet user to be different than the TV viewer or newspaper reader.

To say we need to pay because the newspaper companies did not change their model to survive or come up with additional revenue streams is silly. It is a great part of our history, which I will miss (I actually read the darn things). But it is just that, history. Evolution.

 

[Guest]

I'd be willing to pay if and only if the paper or periodical were delivered in a pdf that precisely matches the original layout of the paper, with full indexing for searches. I would want to download and keep the files for as long as I chose. Then I might consider buying either a la carte issues or a subscription.
On the other hand, if the format is no different than a standard website, and not storeable, then I can get the content for free.

 

[ti1706]

Odds are, they will attempt to impose a "premium" fee, after the manner of other websites. In other words, most news is free, but local, or in depth stories will require an account.
Either way, the day-to-day events reported in newspapers usually aren't worth my money.

 

[Andraxxus]

If what I read helps me think or make some money than yes gladly.

 

[rambo117]

haha, thats a joke, no way im paying for content on the web while im paying my ISP for internet.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Definitely not.

 

[rexter]

There are lots of places to get news for free. But if push comes to shove and we have to pay for it, then, I want Newspaper companies to form an alliance to make one online news report and at least put 2 reporters for one story. It makes the report more neutral as both reporters give their opinion. As they say, two heads are better than one.

I would pay 5 Dollars with ads and 10 Dollars without for 1 year subscription or 5 cents for a story, nothing more, considering I'm already paying for energy, and internet access.

Otherwise I’ll just wait for my free weekly community paper or find another option to read the news for free.

 

[jsc]

Content, yes. News content, no.