QOTD: Would You Pay For Content Online?

[teachscience56]

I would be willing to pay upwards of a hundred dollars per year which is less than the local rag's delivery cost and about the same as a print subscription to Science.
As I read peoples comments, I get the feeling that the belief is the reporting comes from thin air by someone working for free. Good reporting, writing, and content costs money to produce and distribute.
The model in use today with news mostly free online has given rise to a level of "borrowing" of content that would be unacceptable by anyone who understands that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[teachscience56]

I would be willing to pay upwards of a hundred dollars per year which is less than the local rag's delivery cost and about the same as a print subscription to Science.
As I read peoples comments, I get the feeling that the belief is the reporting comes from thin air by someone working for free. Good reporting, writing, and content costs money to produce and distribute.
The model in use today with news mostly free online has given rise to a level of "borrowing" of content that would be unacceptable by anyone who understands that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Independence of our news is a basic freedom of this nation. When my ISP provides news, I must look at the motivation.

 

[Robert17]

There is no such thing as a "free lunch" (Barry Commoner). Somehow you will pay no matter how hidden the fee. The big trick, and for many people it is a trick, is to find the level at which you are comfortable parting with your cash, both for the provider and yourself. I'm comfortable with parting with cash for perceived value. I don't expect free shoes, in fact I'll pay extra for extra-comfortable shoes as my feet get me everywhere I want to go. I take good care of them.

If you've logged onto Tom's to read or post to this QOTD, then you've most likely paid an ISP to get you here. You've paid. The visit already has some costs associated with it. You felt it was worth parting with cash to get this far. There was a perceived value.

It's only a matter of deciding what is worth paying for. There will be ongoing attempts to charge for content of every kind on the internet. Some will succeed profitably, others will fail. The individuals parting with cash will be the deciders. It's up to the folks who want to charge to find a combination of content with value to make it "choosable".

I have and will pay again for certain content. It must be unique. It must be affordable and valuable to me. Just like good shoes.

 

[lukeiamyourfather]

I was a paper boy for seven years when growing up delivering the local paper seven days a week. A substantial portion of the cost of a newspaper subscription is related to the printing and distribution costs of the physical paper. Take those costs away by running entirely online and the largest cost has been eliminated. Newspapers should be able to run online with revenue from advertisements just like every other news source (e.g. Tom's).

 

[Guest]

Access to the Internet should be free for everyone. If it was free, I would pay for online content.

 

[Twoboxer]

Free news is usually worth about the price. Yet with enough free news, eventully the truth comes out lol.

Anyhow, I'd pay for content if, eg, it was like the New York Times *used* to be . . . NEWS . . ., not "analysis", "opinion", "agenda".

The Wall Street Journal does very well, subscription-wise. Regarding its financial coverage, it reports the news, and its analysis is without agenda.

We need an organization that is to everyday news as the WSJ is to business news.

 

[one-shot]

Answer is still no.

 

[LaughALot]

I've been a subscriber to the online version of the Wall Street Journal for more than 10 years now. And, a few years ago when the NY Times tried out a subscription fee to access some of their more premium content I jumped on board.

I would have to add that one of the more attractive features of Kindle is the subscription feature, but I'm waiting for more competition in that market. Kindle provides answers to two problems: the Kindle subscription includes the cost of the bandwidth, you don't every have to pay an ISP to access the content, it's included in the subscription cost.
Second, the cost saving of the paperless format and cheaper delivery format is passed on to the consumer.

This topic is well timed in that this week we learn that President Obama wants to bail out the print media. Sorry Mr. President, but the papers need to change with the times.


I figure if I'd pay for the content if it wasn't available on the net and if I'm saving money by subscribing to the paperless content, why not.

 

[jitpublisher]

I buy maybe a half a dozen news papers a year, so you can bet I won't be paying to read them online.

 

[Guest]

Just like with American cars, we shouldn't be bailing them out if they failed because their products are complete crap. Capitalism would dictate that smaller companies run by non-idiots such as Tesla Motors and Honda America would fill the void. You might call it socialism on a fascist tip, but you can only call Obama a socialist if you call Bush(originator of the bailouts) one as well, otherwise, you're just regurgitating Republican talking points with a Special Olympics gold medal around your neck.

TV has always been free, and has always succeeded on ad revenue, but I wouldn't cry if any or all of the current mainstream media went out of business. There are plenty of quality blogs running on pocket change with more truth and less propaganda to their reporting.

 

[Guest]

It all depends on what the alternatives are. As long as there are other sources of content that are of a high enough quality to meet minimum consumer standards and still offer that content for free, most of the market will not be willing to pay. However, if "free to the consumer" as a business model turns out to be one that no content provider can maintain while keeping quality standards at what the market demands, then free will start going away and people will be willing to pay in the absence of a free alternative. We are a population of individuals driven by incentives. If there are free alternatives and very little incentive to pay for content, we won't. If there is an incentive to pay for that content, we will. I don't fear for the consumers or the content providers. That will work itself out within the market just as it always has. What I fear the most is consumer advocate groups lobbying for government intervention if the "free for consumers" model turns out to be non-viable. The media has always been one of our last refuges to keep government power in check. If it weren't for the media having the resources to do what they do best, things like Watergate would never have come to light and the government would be able to get away with murder. But if special interest groups start complaining that they have a "right to free content" from the media and the government takes control, it will be a huge loss in the weapons we have against tyranny. I for one am always willing to pay the cost of a subscription to help keep us a little more free.

 

[p05esto]

A lot of ignorance here since my initial comment. If the news sites all start charging then you all are either going to pay, or not get the news. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these media companies are coming together in a unified way and will start charging. After that happens and the AP wire is no longer free to all, it will be pay up time for us all.

We can't expect to keep getting all the news and articles for free, someone has to pay employees to write those articles. If ads don't cut it these sites will close shop or start charging. I predict a swift change in the industry to pay-for-content. It's the only way. The newspaper business is drying up and without that revenue they can't maintain staff and keep a web site up and running.

 

[Guest]

p05esto: AP is not the only news source, has Reuters and other non-American outlets agreed to bow down to the AP? I get my news from Europe, that way the American media doesn't put their right-wing spin on it.

 

[pwjone1]

Big caveat: I wouldn't mind paying, but if and only if the content was unique and of interest. For a lot of newspapers, the majority of content is articles from AP, Reuters, New York Times, or various other news sources. Very little is actually unique, local news. I wouldn't mind paying for local news, but I would mind having to pay for a lot of retread news. And I'd like to see the news, be more definable in terms of being prioritized by what I want to see, of interest to me, much as Google news does. Do I care what the local bars' softball league did in last night's game? No. Not all of local news is of interest. But for the stuff that is of interest, I understand that between the readers and advertisers, someone has to pay for the news gatherers' salary.

 

[javaskull]

Pay for content? WTF? You pay ME to view your content. What's with this complete inversion of the marketplace? Is my time worth nothing?

 

[antilycus]

N O the reason these sites are visited is because they are free. We already deal with all the ad's these companies show because they need to pay for their service/time. Beyond that, its not the readers fault the company cant run/manage itself. Everyone knows private business never holds anyone(or the right people) responsible for their actions. if you start charging expect a 85%-90% loss of customers and also expect your income from adversting to go away as well as the hits are dramatically less

 

[antilycus]

[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]A lot of ignorance here since my initial comment. If the news sites all start charging then you all are either going to pay, or not get the news. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these media companies are coming together in a unified way and will start charging. After that happens and the AP wire is no longer free to all, it will be pay up time for us all.We can't expect to keep getting all the news and articles for free, someone has to pay employees to write those articles. If ads don't cut it these sites will close shop or start charging. I predict a swift change in the industry to pay-for-content. It's the only way. The newspaper business is drying up and without that revenue they can't maintain staff and keep a web site up and running.[/citation]

That will never happen because someone will always redistribute the money making news *which will easily be manipulated more now for revenue* for free. Its why Direct TV is losing customers left and right. People arent willing to pay 300 bucks a year to see their favorite outta state football team anymore, when its free online. Same reason I stopped all my TV services and upped my internet. The only ones that are willing to stop the greed are the people willing to steal it from the super greedy.

 

[Guest]

There is a fundamental different between content you pay for and content that advertisers pay for. With content you pay for you are the customer, the content is the product and the content provider is there to serve you. With advertiser sponsored media, the advertiser is the customer, you are the product and the content serves the advertisers needs. Needless to say the content in advertiser driven media is often of poor quality and does not serve the reader.

Regardless of whether I pay for the content directly or whether I pay for it indirectly in terms of high prices for advertised goods eventually we pay for the content. I'd rather pay up front.

So sure I'd pay for good quality reporting. My money is where my mouth is. I pay for an advertisement free version of the Washington Post on my Kindle.

 

[Twoboxer]

[. . . Whole bunch of good stuff deleted . . .] So sure I'd pay for good quality reporting. My money is where my mouth is. I pay for an advertisement free version of the Washington Post on my Kindle.

Unfortunately, what you do doesn't affect what the Washington Post remains . . . content driven by advertisers and ideology.

You just avoid the "popup" ads lol.