Comments on: Willing to pay

By: Manan

Manan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:34:32 +0000

I think it's extremely difficult for a company to really charge for “content” that is online. Not sure if there is anyone out there who has tried it successfully – love to see what happens when NYTimes goes for the bucks from readers.

As far as I can see…it's going to get a lot of traffic down, but as long as they can supplement that by their subscription revenue, things should be fine.

Cheers!

By: SEO Tips

SEO Tips — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:08:51 +0000

Thanks for that. Chocolate is the best

By: Phanio

Phanio — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:52:40 +0000

Yes, you are right. However, when researching, I just don't know – walking in the door – my level of usage. There is so much information out there – that when I see a pay site (much like the WSJ that only provides a snippet then asks you to subscribe) I just move on. It means a little more work on my part – but right now I am OK with that.

I completely agree with you that writers need to be paid for their work and if I was a regular reader of some of these news sites – then I would be glad to pay. But, unfortunately, I am not.

I get requests to reprint my articles all the time. I just ask for credit as I am flattered that they find value in my words and thoughts – but I don't write for a living either.

Lastly, my research is not that valuable. Most of it is for my own edification. I do like to read other's work for inspiration when I am blocked for articles on my own site – but, this usually comes from something small they may say in their work (not based on the entire piece). For example in your piece above – I was particularly interested in why one cannot also utilize photos and videos – especially after paying for the content. This has prompted me to look into other site (online media or social media) that will or try to find out why not.

Side note: I really like your blog – especially the interaction.

By: Shripriya

Shripriya — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:24:02 +0000

Not sure I agree with your logic. If you research less than 10 articles a month, it is free. After that, it is $5/month. Is that too much? Less than 50cents an article? The value of your research has to be more than that, right?

By: Phanio

Phanio — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:52:40 +0000

I completely agree with you that writers need to be paid for their work and if I was a regular reader of some of these news sites – then I would be glad to pay. But, unfortunately, I am not.

I get requests to reprint my articles all the time. I just ask for credit as I am flattered that they find value in my words and thoughts – but I don't write for a living either.

Side note: I really like your blog â€“ especially the interaction.

By: Shripriya

Shripriya — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:24:02 +0000

By: Phanio

Phanio — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:50:53 +0000

This is great for those like you who do visit and read the Times each day. But, for people like me, I only visit when doing research and I do not want to pay $5 or $2.50 every month just to do research. If I use something from the Times, I will cite them and drive traffic back.

Also, if a vast majority of new agencies begin to charge subscriptions for their services – I think this would entice our government to tax it. If they tax this, they will start taxing everything on the web (just my paranoid opinion).

By: AnnQ

AnnQ — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:00:24 +0000

I agree…I read NYT Online most every day, and I'd absolutely pay a small fee to continue. It just makes more sense to me than wasting paper (and it's so much more convenient online!).

Interestingly, my parents – both in their mid-Sixties – prefer reading from an actual Newspaper and not the Internet, which may show a preference based on what they've grown up with.

By: Shripriya | DesiPundit

Shripriya | DesiPundit — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:47:03 +0000

[...] Willing to pay [...]

By: Shripriya

Shripriya — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:15:07 +0000

I don't think it needs every paper to charge. I only read the Times and the WaPo to a lesser extent. Rarely the WSJ which is already behind a subscription wall. If the Times charged, I would pay. I wold not switch to the LA Times or the Chicago Sun Times. I just don't think the quality is the same. And I am used to the writers on the Times. I read some of them every week.

I think your point of “if anyone gives away decent content, no one can charge” is true in an undifferentiated market. To me, the news market is highly differentiated especially when it is other than breaking news. To you, though, it is probably undifferentiated. The question for the NY Times is are there more of me or more of you?