Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Back on Digg
4080 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
doublerainbow
61 Followers
John Stanley
-78 Followers
Flyingspaghetti Monster
670 Followers
Sheryl Hodge
776 Followers
Iamamaniac
2402 Followers
Cass Anderson
15065 Followers
ninhJul 20, 2010
Pricing yourself into nothingness .. priceless.
howcleverJul 21, 2010
Because "free" is working so well?
boneheadfarkerJul 21, 2010
Free with ads is better than 90% less readership and dropping.
sdphostJul 21, 2010
Not if the ad revenue of those 90% readers is less than the fee that the 10% pay.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
Your usage of digg.com is brought to you by the banner ads to the right. -->
Works for you, right?
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
A lot of these people who say, "Charge me, charge me!!!" are paid shills.
angosturaJul 21, 2010
I'd like to see exactly how much the traffic drop is saving in terns of hosting and bandwidth cost. The number of free readers by itself is really just a vanity issue, what matters is revenues minus cost, this could *still* be a winner for News International
(Not that I'm a Murdoch fan).
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Free certainly isn't working for Google.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
@eShinn, It works on Digg because they doesn't have to pay for content. Times, on the other hand, has to hire people called "reporters" that "research" and "investigate" and "vet" stories before being posted online. For some odd reason, these greedy reporters don't work for free...
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
@eShinn
There is one of the MOST important things that never seems to get taken into consideration.
Sure, they might make a bit more money, but they're losing 90% of the power to sway public opinion. They're making money, but making themselves pretty much irrelevant in the process.
I hope Rupert does it to ALL of his holdings.
mxm111Jul 21, 2010
But they collect infinite times more money from the readers than before!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but you're spot on. Obviously, no one *likes* pay-walls, but it doesn't take an MBA to understand that 10% of visitors paying something is better than 100% visitors paying nothing.
azrobotoJul 21, 2010
What about advertisements on the website?
Even though people are paying now, is the revenue from that better than before when they had 10x more traffic seeing and possibly clicking on all those ads?
mikeosxJul 21, 2010
And is earning revenue from 10% of your revenue worth losing the other 90%?
donpacific2kAug 9, 2010
Just to add to the other responses that there is an intangible value to having your website be the first place people think of to go for news. I suspect it's better for people to think "Times is a great company, or a leading authority" rather than "Times is a greedy corporation, and I can get this news elsewhere for free"
jimbsJul 21, 2010
To paraphrase Lore Sjöberg, only on the internet it would be considered a bad idea to get rid of your non-paying customers.
imkidredJul 20, 2010
Murdock deserves it. Did anyone really think people would pay for access to that website while there are plenty of free alternatives? Curious if the paid access site still has the collection of ads on it.
murxJul 20, 2010
Ads? As a capitalist you DON'T miss out on profit....
Did I answer your question?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
I'm glad he's focusing on making money, and not keeping the ability to sway public opinion with 10x the readership.
Our country would be a lot better off if they'd put up a pay wall and FOX lost 90% of it's viewers.
zirchxworldJul 24, 2010
but the great thing about capitalism is that you DON'T have to pay it.
g8kprJul 21, 2010
Then again people pay to see useless sh*t on starwars.com. Lucas is a money whore and it's the only company website that I know of that ask's it's visitors to pay to see stuff. Yes there is some free stuff there, but once they had a whole "elite" pay area where you get special stuff before anyone else, etc. I stopped going to the site all together. I haven't been back since, and that was like 4 or 5 years ago.
basalcellbosskJul 21, 2010
People pay for entertainment.
fhwqhgadsJul 21, 2010
^^^ Not on the Internet they don't. Times have changed. Too bad these old businesses can't. Oh well, the dinosaurs will die out.
skankingmikeJul 21, 2010
Why are you digging him down? People do pay for entertainment and even gasp! on the internet!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
MMOs would tend to disagree with the idea that people don't pay for entertainment over the internet.
altorJul 21, 2010
What entertainment is there to be had at starwars.com?
mxm111Jul 21, 2010
"Did anyone really think people would pay for access to that website while there are plenty of free alternatives?"
The answer is yes. In fact 10% of people.
bernlin2000Jul 21, 2010
I think it reflects poorly on that 10%, as intelligent consumers. The basic idea is you're suppose to find the highest quality of a good/service and the highest value, and balance those as you see fit. Is there any argument that The Times is somehow superior to other online newspapers that don't charge? I think these people are getting robbed because it makes them feel good.
paduraJul 22, 2010
10 percent now, but let's wait and see what will happen in future, it has just been 3 weeks, numbers might go up or down.
jarshtJul 21, 2010
Yes they are, but they are more tailored to me because I provided personal information when I signed up.
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
Which immediately got sold to advertising "partners".
jarshtAug 12, 2010
Looks like you're the only one who got it.
skyscapeJul 21, 2010
Even business man with PHD's make stupid business decisions.
mbraynardJul 21, 2010
Did you really think that a non-paying user has any value to Murdock?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
At the polls? Yes, they're very valuable.
But Rupert has just cast 90% of those voters away in his quest to squeeze more money out of the readership.
So, Rupert gets to roll around in his money, and 90% of the people he influenced at the polls won't be under his influence anymore.
It's a win for civilized society.
omgacanadianJul 21, 2010
Reminds me of Hulu plus. Pay to use it and it STILL has ads.
imkidredJul 20, 2010
My question was sarcastic but my main point was that if you don't offer anything worth upgrading to, why would you pay for the same content that you had when it was free? Now you lose 90% of your visitors-what value do you have for the companies running ads on your website now? It's a big FAIL in my book.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
That's always been my response when people invoke the paid WSJ model. There's a huge psychological difference between paying for content in general and paying for content which used to be free but is suddenly placed behind a paywall. Millions of people are willing to pay for online access to news (such as WSJ) and entertainment (such as monthly MMO subscriptions). But you REALLY start running into problems if you try to switch from a free model to a paid one.
seltaeb4Jul 21, 2010
The paywall only works for the WSJ because people can charge the subscription to their boss as an expense.
The WSJ would fold if it didn't have this subsidation.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Plus the WSJ is like the bible to us business folk. The coverage of American business is unparalleled. THAT is the key, you need to create content that people cannot live without or find anywhere else.
We don't need 10,000 newspapers that report the same stuff.
akseitzJul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
sageerrantJul 21, 2010
Stop, Stop, Play. Enjoy your movie, instead of trailers and commercials.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
That's what you get for being greedy.
pantone109Jul 21, 2010
that's what you get for being out of touch
omicronnineJul 21, 2010
More revenue and lower bandwidth bills?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
And much less influence in the public sphere.
EVERYTHING boils down to money with your type, doesn't it?
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
Who are you people that seem to always be for anything vile, anything greedy, anything that separates humanity into classes? Some kind of moral deficit seems to exist in some people, where they cannot enjoy life unless they are screwing someone in the process. Get a life! When I enjoy something, I am not sitting there thinking, "hahaha, yes, so many people wish they could enjoy this, but they cannot afford it. (Cackle turns into a guffaw, then into a "Wahahahaha!" with a slap on the knee). Do you take your cues from every villain in every disney movie ever made? That's just pathetic. Show some compassion. Some of you people are emotionally retarded.
seltaeb4Jul 21, 2010
"When I enjoy something, I am not sitting there thinking, 'hahaha, yes, so many people wish they could enjoy this, but they cannot afford it.' (Cackle turns into a guffaw, then into a 'Wahahahaha!' with a slap on the knee.)"
It's the Limbaugh Nation.
Rush Limbaugh is what happens when Eric Cartman reaches adulthood.
rizzosbackJul 21, 2010
It's greedy to want someone to pay for the product that you spent money creating?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
They create news?
rizzosbackJul 21, 2010
The reporter who wrote the story most certainly did. As did the editor, the webmaster, the photographer and all the other support people that give you news with more credibility than some random blogger.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Most of their stories come from press agencies.
rizzosbackJul 21, 2010
Other news websites aren't managing just fine. They're slowly bleeding to death and don't know how they can fix it.
The newspapers are losing readership because people won't pay for the paper version of something they can get online and the newspapers are giving it away online because that was just the way people started doing it in the early 00s without really thinking about what that meant for long term business.
The simple reality of it is if **** keep expecting it to be free, real journalists will be out of a job, and the only news will be blogosphere nonsense with no standards, verification or accountability.
The only way real print journalism can survive is with subscriptions just like in print, which are not expensive, and do deliver value.
As for the 90% dropoff, I'd rather have 10% paying customers than 100% freeloaders in any business.
ganjamonstaJul 21, 2010
it sucks for the old dinosaurs, but this is the new world we live in. the internet has made news much more liquid. as a commodity, it is now cheaper to produce and distribute. the problem is that these people don't want to come to terms with the fact that it is cheaper to distribute news now. they want to gain even more revenue off of the savings they receive from the online distribution model. as in any free market system, the old dinosaurs who expect to get their millions while saving money on something that is now cheaper and easier to disperse are going to go extinct, and new, younger and less expensive people (or less greedy however you want to read it) will come in and fill their shoes.
bernlin2000Jul 21, 2010
The only "****" here are the people the put newspapers online for free, and somehow expected that would be a good future business model. Now they have to fix the mess they created, and it's likely going to mean fewer journalists, less coverage, less ability to properly authenticate a story. I suppose I should cry when that time comes, but I'll mostly be pissed that this outdated industry failed to see the train coming, where they parked their car on the tracks because it was what everyone else was doing.
The hardest part is that we get news from MANY sources today, compared to the past where you might have 1 or 2 newspapers and the evening news on TV. If there was some way to consolidate all the news sources into one pay model that worked for all of them then we might have a solution. It would be awfully hard to herd all those varying sources under one subscription, but something like this will have to be done if any old media source wants to survive on the Internet.
iceman21Aug 1, 2010
If there was only one or two news sources i would not trust the news at all.
diggrageJul 21, 2010
I want everything free! Hey, why are there no jobs!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
You should not have to pay to read or hear about things that happen around you in the world you live in. This isn't about getting everything free, f**kwad. It's about changing the way humanity shares its information.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laughtoJul 21, 2010
Gathering information costs money.
Providing analysis of information costs money.
Sharing information and analysis on the internet costs money.
But consuming that content is free.
How do you recommend we make this sustainable?
And you shouldn't just throw 'f**kwad' around.
remeloxJul 21, 2010
Advertising. It's really the only answer if you want to have no paid content at all. Information about the world should be free. However, there are limited advertising dollars and information is too abundant to make it practical to have a free information society (unless you torrent their CDs (yes, bad joke (and too much nesting))).
Free content should be an ideal we strive for. The Times approach is just plain in the wrong direction. yes, they deserve to be paid for compiling and providing information, but they aren't going to be very successful online unless they can offer something else beyond that information that will be reiterated by other web sites, television stations, and papers.
chileangodJul 21, 2010
Hey... I'm somewhat of a believer that true communism is the most highest form of society humanity can achieve (..but utopic)... Never the less I agree 100% with the words of Laughto here above me. Getting that information costs labor and efforts that we can only get, based on our current era, in exchange for money.
johnagainJul 21, 2010
@Laughto - are you kidding me? Do you you know how much money Google spends to bring me information, stupid little addictive games, porn, pictures of Bacon, and Digg? They do it for FREE, (to me) supported by relatively non-invasive advertising. Ya, I know it pisses some people off, but it doesn't bother me. Loads of sites have adopted this very sucessful model, and most of the posters on this page are, in one way or another, suggesting that the Times should adopt this model and not try to grab even more $ than the ads supply.
On another note, Murddock is a greedy corrupt bastard that tries to spin the news, and that pisses me off. I want to know what is happening, not his version of what is happening. News agencies today SUCK in general. Murdock is just one of the easiest targets, and I'm lazy. But that does not mean he does not deserve criticism.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
If everything was free... you wouldn't NEED a job m'kay?
sabinJul 21, 2010
@Laughto
Over the air television broadcast have been free for 50+ years yet TV stations have always managed to make money. Their business model works and can easily be applied to the web.
pronouncableJul 21, 2010
Because of how abrupt it is, people view it as arbitrary since the content is essentially the same. They're doing bad now because the internet is evolving and there's no eloquent solution for them to fall back on.
fifteenstepperJul 21, 2010
Know why people expect free stuff? Because it's out there, thanks to the free market--which it seems like you support. I'm not sure what to make of your comment.
adml_shakeJul 21, 2010
Or you know do what other websites do and put up some advertisements. As long as the site doesn't go overboard with them, it's not a big deal.
jkalJul 21, 2010
The biggest innovators and currently richest companies wikipedia.org, Digg.com, mozilla.com & Google.com but to name a few... FREE.
It's time to change the old way of thinking and let these dinosaur companies die away, natural attrition at work... love it.
furtthepirateJul 21, 2010
wikipedia shouldn't count as its a nonprofit and gets all of its cash through donations.
taiboJul 21, 2010
Wikipedia and Mozilla are the richest companies?
uswarrior1Jul 21, 2010
Well, like most places on the internet its free to you because there is enough traffic on the cite that advertisement covers the cost of the web cite and staff, they are still making money off making it free. There just not making the money they want to make by charging people..... Cause putting things on the internet is way way more cheaper than in paper, why not put those savings to the consumer?
diggrageJul 21, 2010
Wow, pretty sad I get so many buries. It meant my comment as a point of discussion, something to think about... not "OMG I think I disagree, I better bury because I can't come up with a real comment, or a real thought on the matter."
Some additional points:
One, it costs money to place those ads.
Two, people have to purchase the products and services those ads promote, or else those ads go away.
Three, many people block those ads.
How sustainable do you think "everything is free because advertising will pay for it" is??? Think logically and you might get the flaw in this theory.
How many of you actually buy anything those ads promote. Exactly.
skeloothJul 21, 2010
I've made purchases and found new retailers through advertisements plenty of times. Not everyone is you.
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
It worked for televsion and certain magazines for a long time. I think it si quite sustainable. Only when greed rears its ugly head do we start getting problems.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Perfectly valid point of discussion. Unlike TV, I can ignore ads on the web (if for some strange reason my ad blocker isn't running) with no loss of time. With TV, more often than not, I watch the ads because getting up takes more effort. So if a growing number of people block or ignore (don't even notice) ads, how exactly is this sustainable? Are advertisers going to continue paying to have people block and ignore?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
@DiggRage
BAD example on your original post.
"Hey, why are there no jobs!"
Well, the jobs are still being done. Just by people who get paid far, far less.
texmexrexJul 21, 2010
It's a buisness. Run it the way yo want.
mrtitoJul 21, 2010
... just be ready to not have a business for too much longer when you make bad decisions.
zirchxworldJul 24, 2010
the customers will be the judge of that!
heinrich1223Jul 21, 2010
Business*** Just saying.
I agree though. Run it the way you want. A general rule of thumb is to run a business in a way that is beneficial to you...but if they want to run the business into the ground...that is their choice yes?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
If their shareholders don't sue them for it, sure.
zirchxworldJul 24, 2010
its natural selection for businesses. if they cant adapt to their customers they will cease to exist. and i for one am all for filtering the weak to keep the strong.
texmexrexJul 21, 2010
OK, they are loosing a quarter million pounds a day BEFORE they made this change. So the buisness is already nose diving. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/23/news-international-times-sun
You can recomend "keep doing the same thing!" all you want, but they are going to run out of money soon, and then there is no free content, no paid content.
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
That's the free market. If they suck at what they do, they suck at what they do. Others have found a way to provide the same product through advertising. At this point, they are just thrashing and flailing in their death throes. Bye bye, Times.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
...into the ground, if you please.
anawnymooseJul 21, 2010
He is running it the way he wants, and that way isn't working, and now we're talking about it.
You're caught up to the conversation now.
texmexrexJul 21, 2010
Being a smart ass is easy. Try adding something constructive to the converstion.
anawnymooseJul 22, 2010
Though I undeniably made my point in a smart ass way, it still stands. Paywalls don't work for news sites unless they're extremely cheap, for the simple reason that people will just go elsewhere. He CAN run it how he wants but he's going to lose a lot of readership that way, which is what the article is about and what we're talking about.
You get me now?
mortonalabasterJul 21, 2010
Duh
tigeryakJul 21, 2010
In other news VCR sales are down.
antdudeJul 21, 2010
I still use mine! No DRM and subscription. :) Yeah, quality sucks but I can live with that since I still use my 20" CRT TV from 1996.
kibblesnbittsJul 21, 2010
cool story, bro.
antdudeJul 21, 2010
KobblesnBitts: Thanks, sis. :P
treshnellJul 21, 2010
My grandma loves hers, too.
Everyone else I know just streams or torrents what they want to watch.
antdudeJul 21, 2010
Treshnell: A lot of old people do. I am old too. :( I wish TiVo and other DVRs didn't have required subscriptions and DRMs.
veriixJul 21, 2010
macrovision
antdudeJul 21, 2010
Veriix: I have never run into that when recording TV shows over the air (OTA) and video capture to my computer when needed.
mbraynardJul 21, 2010
with your new converter box, of course.
antdudeJul 21, 2010
Mbraynard: Yes! But it is very buggy/unstable. I have the regular DTV Pal model. It likes to hang/freeze. When that happens, one has to disconnect its power for hours. :( It even has the latest firmware (not easily upgradeable like its DVR models) and its technical support SUCKS. You can see all the complaints in http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18902792 ...
See, my VCR and CRT TV never crashes. :(
theinformerJul 21, 2010
In a related story, Betamax tape production stops.
ryokuchaaJul 21, 2010
I hear the next big thing is LaserDisc.
faithclubdotnetJul 21, 2010
Stupid Internet, keeping my Betamax video delivery system by horse and buggy buisness down.
antdudeJul 21, 2010
Haha, LD. My dad still has that set up and working, but he rarely uses it even for karaokes. Who still has one?
bjornskiJul 23, 2010
"It's like a big silver record but it's not. It's a laser Disc, there's a movie on here!"
dmurphy04Jul 22, 2010
But what if they're not?
How are you so sure?
/s
funnythatJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
pumpkinking11Aug 8, 2010
i bought a laserdisc player
enantiodromiaJul 21, 2010
Ya think?!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Who on earth is actually paying for that s**t content?
pantone109Jul 21, 2010
whoever pays the reporters?
tona107Jul 21, 2010
Times probably doesn't even have reporters, they just record Murdoch jerking it and pass it off as news.
richehhJul 21, 2010
I actually like The Times newspaper, I wouldn't call it crap content. Then again I haven't paid for the online version (and will not be doing so) so it may differ.
burnerzJul 21, 2010
Yeah i'm the same. Also, the economics related articles are very good in the times compared to many otehr newspapers.
marogerJul 21, 2010
The same people who keep on telling themselves what the paper itself is telling them that the NYTimes is the paper of record.
tgc1Jul 21, 2010
Old people who do not know any better.
kithkatulJul 21, 2010
Worth pointing out, I think, that the 90% drop was expected and was taken into account when they made the change.
dselliottJul 21, 2010
Yeah? So it was "taken into account"? Now what?
zirchxworldJul 24, 2010
you tell us
kithkatulJul 21, 2010
Now they see if they can turn a profit.
I tend to be against the whole idea, but its pointless to say 'take that!' or gloat over their loss in readers when they knew it was coming.
basalcellbosskJul 21, 2010
They didn't know it was coming.
alerxJul 23, 2010
Exactly,
Corporations don't care about how many people visit their website, they care about how much money the website makes them.
The strategists at Times obviously prefer 1 dollar a day from 10% of their veiwership to the ad revenue from the other 90%.
diggamyteJul 21, 2010
Didn't see that one coming...
/s
newbrunswickmanJul 21, 2010
the /s wasn't really needed lol
diggamyteJul 21, 2010
Ha, true. I'm putting myself in the Unnecessary Sarcasm Disclaimer Corner for 5 minutes for that one.
OH GOD it's horrible here. Everyone is telling "that's what she said" jokes.
barbizonJul 21, 2010
the lol wasn't really needed.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
It would be needed for anyone who pays for The Times ;.p
altorJul 21, 2010
Posting sarcasm without an /s is Digg suicide, there will always be a retard that buries you for supporting Nazis or whatever.
wallyantiJul 21, 2010
Haha, now that the means to distribute information is unlimited (well virtually) people see that it isn't worth a bulls**t membership fee. We all have ideas. We didn't all have a printing press and now we don't need one. Why should we pay comparable rates to those demanded by printing when it has been taken out of the equation.
This situation is analogous to the one the RIAA finds itself in; that is to say they are now operating an obsolete business. This is the natural course of things and they need to be satisfied with the same payment methods afforded to most bloggers; they are no better except where their reputation is concerned.
Perhaps they can print something else and sell it if they wish. I suggest political imagery on ass-napkins.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
bloggers != journalism
wallyantiJul 22, 2010
Well, blogging can be journalism, but most of the time it's just ranting. The problem most people have with it is that blogging requires you to know the basics of logic; you must be able to tell when someone is blowing smoke. The danger of major publications is that people become lazy in this way. They expect a major source of journalism to shoot straight because they have a reputation to uphold. The problem is that we have come to expect sell outs. Take for example the News Corp.(the people who brought us Fox News) acquisition of The Wall street Journal. You would assume the Wallstreet Journal would be a good source because it has been such a trusted source for so long. People like myself find the move to be suspicious because it is likely that News Corp.. just wanted to put a new, more trustworthy face on it's bulls**t trade.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
Sure, a journalist can blog, but I don't think that was the gist of your original post (not what I gleaned from it anyway). Correct me if I misread but I think you imply that all the Times did was "distribute information", which I'd say is a lot different than journalism.
Yes, technology is making print obsolete but professional journalism is called "the fourth estate" because it is essential to our democracy. As a country we need to be thinking how we can support professional news organizations (and I'm not just talking the biggies).
Blogging is dirt cheap, all it takes is one person and an opinion, which is why most blogs are crap. Journalism requires an education, experience, research, years of getting to know the beat, etc. That costs money and we throw it away for fluff-pieces at our own peril.
I don't have the answers (if I did I'd be rich). Newspaper pay-walls are temporarily effective because they retain existing subscribers but they anger the everything-is-free generation and don't inspire new customers.
Obviously net-advertising wasn't effective enough since it didn't work.
wallyantiJul 22, 2010
That the waters have been muddied is my only point. And yes all the Times did was distribute information after collecting and verifying said information. Journalism only implies that you collect, verify, and publish your ideas on various matters. You can expect a journalist to try to present data in the most unbiased way possible, but there always is a bias by virtue of the fact that they only have their own perception of the matters. Also major publication journalists are restrained by said reputation just as much as they are bolstered by it. For example, the times cannot publish whatever they want just because it's true. They cannot publish things that sources like Wikileaks can. Like the recently released footage of our troops in a helicopter taking out reporters, civilians, and children indiscriminately.
The only differences between the Times and any other blog is reputation and scarcity. Blogging is dirt cheap and therefore plentiful and that reduces it's perceived value. Stories are being broken constantly because in this turbulent sea of info bloggers tend to take the, "lets throw it against the wall and see if it gets noticed" approach. The Times could never do this because they had such a limited amount of space, which thereby increased it's perceived value.
So the problem I have with the times is their limited scope, but they make up for this by having a reputation to uphold. The problem I have with blogging is that they don't necessarily have to maintain a good reputation to sustain their profit; sometimes a bad reputation is more profitable. Under the pure definition of the word though, they are all journalists; it's just that some of them have no sense of ethics. It's up to us to decide for ourselves who is giving the most accurate picture.
The burden is on us to listen and wade through the bulls**t. We have become too lazy as citizens in that we just trust our news organizations to spoon feed us our ideas. We should be more skeptical of all sources.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
The waters have always been muddied. There is nothing new in media as far as influence of the publication's owners. (See Citizen Kane)
Most major publications have an orientation, which isn't exactly the same as bias.
"You can expect a journalist to try to present data in the most unbiased way possible"
Nope. You expect them to present the data in a truthful, well-researched, way - not unbiased. There's a difference.
"Journalism only implies that you collect, verify, and publish your ideas on various matters."
If you are going to be pedantic then this conversation goes nowhere. Journalism implies a great deal more. But even with what you stated, blogging only implies that you write and publish. The whole pass it by an editorial desk, verify, and even collect are all optional. The vast majority of bloggers are echo chambers; reading the news from other sites and then putting their spin on it.
You fall easily into the "good old days" trap (you lean conservative, right?) where there was a golden period of time when the citizenry were all well informed and had the experience, education, and knowledge to pick aparte the minutiae of a BP disaster or political misdeeds.
The whole point of having established, competing news organizations is that reputation is on the table. Yes, every newspaper's reputation has ebbed and flowed but there is a huge value to having a long-standing newsroom like the WSJ or NYT.
mattropolisJul 21, 2010
'We all have ideas'
Yeah, but as even Thomas Edison would tell you - 99% of them weren't good.
I'd still pay to get data-backed and well-studied commentary. If I want to hear opinions from the masses, I'll go to the sports bar or interne...oh.
mrtitoJul 21, 2010
So... your core business still runs on Old Media operations and functions, and you want people to pay for that? You want people to pay for you being a gatekeeper in the age of free-flowing information. Yeah, that's brilliant!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Yuck yuck yuck, and therefore charging for journalism online is impossible. That 90% is just a knee jerk reaction. Give it some time. Personally I hope that all major newspaper switch to pay all at once. Would really put a dent in something like say.. uh.. Digg.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
remeloxJul 21, 2010
Only if you count the Daily Mail as a newspaper. Still plenty of Break, TruTV, Youtube, and xkcd.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/19/cnet.new.york.times.online.charge/index.html
do you count them?
remeloxJul 21, 2010
Go ahed and compare how many Daily Mail articles are on Digg compared to CNN. See how many are Break, TruTV, or Youtube and compare that to CNN. And almost every single day xkcd and similar comics make it to the front page while I don't see very many Times or CNN articles in comparison. I also left out all the blog comments about iPhones, Androids, XBoxes, PS3s, WIIs, Windows, Chrome, Netscape, Internet Explorer, pictures of cats, pictures of dogs, pictures of goats, videos of skaters, freerunners, roommates, partiers, video games not on Break or Youtube.
Tell you what, front page right this moment...
dailymail.co.uk
autointhenews.com
edition.cnn.com
thestar.com
mint.com
greenopolis.com
blogs.pitch.com
greenbiz.com
care2.com
earthandindustry.com
guardian.co.uk
midwestsportsfans.com
reuters.com
irishtimes.com
vimeo.com
We might lose three from that list (bad but not a big deal) and maybe even lose the Daily Mail or the Guardian (not bad). That still leaves 9 out of 15. But then there would still be 15 because six other articles would fill in that gap.
When I added Digg to my rss feed, it was listed under "technology". It doesn't really meet that criteria any longer but it meets it better than "world news". Digg will survive as will msot otehr aggregators. People love them some kittens.
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
Do you notice how there are poeple who seem to despise the fact that everyone has equal acess to anything? Even elections, generally conservatives fight tooth and nail to prevent more people from voting. If anything, it seems like they push against a tsunami of liberal bias that exists in reality.
sakuradamonJul 21, 2010
hey you guys want to go to my birthday party?
whodoneitJul 21, 2010
Sure. I've got a big candle for you to blow....
...out.
kibblesnbittsJul 21, 2010
Dugg for absolute randomness.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
Dugg for Absolute
alexbarnes94Jul 21, 2010
When is it? Where are you having it?
finalsightJul 21, 2010
Only if there's blackjack. And hookers.
...in fact, forget the party. BBL
sameziesJul 21, 2010
Sent from my iPhone
acardwell3Jul 21, 2010
You still haven't told me what you want me to get you!!
grabateJul 21, 2010
Their former readers now get their news from a more reputable website, thesun.co.uk
greatdrokJul 21, 2010
More likely the BBC - and that will be the next target for Murdoch. He hates the BBC and will use this disaster as proof that the BBC shouldn't provide free news since it is anti-competitive (he thinks).
noiseacheyJul 21, 2010
Most likely the Guardian or Telegraph who'll be watching this very closely.
mromniscientJul 21, 2010
If only there were another business model besides paid subscriptions to support an online enterprise.... let me Google that question... oh... wait...
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
The question is what is the ratio of the income from subscriptions vs. adverts, more or less than 10:1?
altorJul 21, 2010
You sir, are a scholar.
kingsway8605Jul 21, 2010
The problem with web ads is they don't work. It is a huge bubble and is about to pop just like the housing market did. Think about it? How often do you buy or purchase something as the result of a web ad? How many of you go as far as just blocking the ads? They have to make money somehow.
remeloxJul 21, 2010
Not all ads are about the click. I definitely think you are right about advertising being a bubble that will pop, but I don't think it's going to take everything with it.
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
More to the point, CPMs are under pressure every year and keeping falling.
Inventory (page views) grows at an exponential rate. But ad spend only grows at a linear rate. This is depressing CPMs.
If you look at total ad spend for any given market, the largest categories are still broadcast TV, print and outdoor.
kyanJul 21, 2010
Which is really interesting, because I have not ever clicked on one of those billboards.
alexweiskerJul 21, 2010
Those Newegg ads works on me. I usually click and sometimes buy. You just need the right demographic at a good price.
mudgieJul 29, 2010
The bubble popped ages ago. Advertising on the Internet pays so little now, that if you intended to make a living off your website, you'd need tens of thousands of people per day and some very nicely targeted ads.
greglyJul 21, 2010
Isn't anybody else worried that if legitimate news sites can't make it in the new economy then there will be no real journalism left?
I remember reading a post from a legitimate tech blog about the iphone issues that was on the front page recently, where the blogger quoted a source without doing any work on checking it, and ripped on Jobs and the consumer that the source was talking about. Then, later, he found out the source was wrong, and wrote an update ripping on the source. I sure hope this kind of "jounalism" isn't what I have to come to expect in all my news. And I'm sure this was a successful article in his eyes because, hey, he made it to the front page of Digg.
As for the discussion about the free market, even if you purchase a subscription to a website or support a business's right to do that, you're not anti-free market because you are acting as a consumer.
propethicJul 21, 2010
There are legitimate news sites?
jabbrwockeyJul 21, 2010
The Economist isn't bad.
NPR podcasts are awesome, and the BBC on U.S. news tops all because they don't give a f**k.
mycutepetpicsJul 21, 2010
"Isn't anybody else worried that if legitimate news sites can't make it in the new economy then there will be no real journalism left?"
Sadly, that day is already here.
phyltreJul 21, 2010
As someone who was very interested in becoming a journalist in college, until I found out how it actually works--there's been very little real journalism for a long time. Broadcast news is and always has been, fundamentally, a bid for ratings. The number of press releases that make their way into the news has always been far too high. Ever wonder why pretty much all news, nationwide, follows the same format? It's a mill. Find a lead, get a paragraph of exposition, interview some people who probably don't know anything about what's going on, end with a neutral question worded as a statement.
Not even touching on issues like cultural and social biases, the vast majority of "real" journalism is and always has been a mess. Sure, there are a few people with real motivations to make real news. Pity the system rarely allows the time for it, or the corporate sponsors rarely allow it to air. After spending some time in that field, I haven't watched a shred of broadcast journalism in years. At least sitcoms don't pretend to be saving your child's life every night.
agmlauncherJul 21, 2010
I'm sorry, I was too busy looking at pictures of celebrities. Could you summarize your comment? It has too many big words and not enough pictures.
eshinnJul 21, 2010
@Gregly. It is a bit concerning. I mean, when we pay for something, it's quality isn't it? Remember how expensive encyclopedias were?
Encyclopedia Britannica - 30-day Free Trial:
http://info.britannica.com/?gclid=CMzvg7Dr-6ICFQuenAodfk1JkA&T=1279688559&JTID=156457181&OGID=306&network=GAW
eshinnJul 21, 2010
...also notice the amount of banner-ads on EB's site as opposed to the free WP ;.)
greglyJul 21, 2010
I see your point, however, I would argue that there's an important different between encyclopedia's and journalism, mainly, that one of the things I want is the ability to trust the article - to ensure that it's sources are reputable and checked, facts are correct, so on and so forth. Also, this has to be done relatively quickly, by one person. With Wikipedia, I don't trust it enough where, if something really matters, I'll just go with their facts. Also, it can be edited by experts over a long period of time.
wildJul 21, 2010
Yes. Very worried. The world is going to be run by the likes of Gawker Media, and that should scare anyone who cares about truth and accuracy in reporting.
apatheeJul 21, 2010
That's what happens when you read Gizmodo.
ptfoeJul 24, 2010
legitimate new sites? these are the same s**tty sites that bought every single crap Bush told them without the journalistic instinct to fact check.
Newspapers in the last twenty years are run by multinational corporations that exhibit little integrity in their journalism, and spit out the same junk.
rodneyws1977Jul 21, 2010
So how does this affect their ad rates?
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
It makes their ad rates go up. Pay sites can charge US$30-US$50 per cpm, where it's about US$1-US$5 for free sites.
gazowJul 21, 2010
probably shouldnt f**k with google
azwethinkweizmJul 21, 2010
CNN doesn't make you register, just saying...
altorJul 21, 2010
CNN blows. NYT blows too. American news sites in general, really.
Closed AccountAug 1, 2010
CNN is absolute garbage. NYT and the BBC are better alternatives
sitpomkJul 21, 2010
Did someone expect something different? This was a business move and it may have worked in their favor.
Previously their CPM (Ad revenue earned per thousand visitors) could have been somewhere between 2-5 dollars. No one really knows but them. Now they have a tenth of the visitors but those visitors f**king pay money. Out of those 1000 visitors, 100 stayed and paid them a buck. It may reduce their reach but it increases profits drastically. 5 bucks vs 100 bucks per thousand visitors.
This is just to all saying that it's a major fail and that TIME dropped the ball on this one. They are showering in money right now.
brenisaJul 21, 2010
I think this was expected. Their paid reach was and is local. But now they've lost their global reach to a more casual and occasional reader. It would be interesting to see a global exchange service set up where readers who pay for say, the New York Times, could pay a few dollars more to access a certain number of articles from another territory, like the UK Times, and UK subscribers could do the same.
inactiveuserJul 21, 2010
Now they have to explain to advertisers were all the traffic went. Good luck with that...
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
Your analysis is correct. Most people commenting here don't understand the economics of newspapers or news production. They just think everything should be free, without understanding how the news is going to pay for itself.
The only reason why there is free online news today is because print newspaper advertising is paying for it.
Some points:
1. CPMs are higher for a paying user base than it is for a free user base
2. Advertising revenue offline is still greater than online ... having a consistent pricing policy across both channels (print and online) will keep more people in print, where advertising rates are higher.
3. Print is subsidizing the cost of news production for online. Online news isn't 'free' because offline products (ie print news advertising) is paying for it.
basalcellbosskJul 21, 2010
This is only true if you believe the Murdoch business is aimed at supplying news.
It's not. It's an organization focussed on altering perceptions.
londonflareJul 21, 2010
It's The Times, a UK daily broadsheet newspaper. Not Time, the US weekly news magazine.
danconiaJul 21, 2010
That's what I was wondering. If many are paying right now I have a feeling they will be cancelling their subscriptions soon enough.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Just want to point out the "The Times" of UK and "TIME" are two different publications from separate companies. The first (which the article is about) is owned by Rupert Murdoch (The guy who gave America the Faux News Channel), and the later is owned by Time Inc.
mariwanabe8Jul 21, 2010
1) No point in paying when there are free news sites
2) Registering for things sucks. Especially when you pay. You have to find your credit card, write out long numbers and all that. Too time consuming.
bartledooJul 21, 2010
You don't have your credit card number memorized already? I've shopped online enough that I know it off the top of my head.
jabbrwockeyJul 21, 2010
I actually have mine memorized too... but that's because I'm cursed with a photographic memory.
iceman21Aug 1, 2010
I don't know why you are being dugg down, i know collectively and can instictively recite the phone numbers of everyone i call reguarly, all my credit card/debit card numbers, my national insurance number, my council tax account number...the list goes on.
Some people are just good with numbers.
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
"News" sites aren't free. They are being subsidized by offline print advertising.
No stand-alone online operation can afford to stay in business through online advertising and still produce journalism at the same level as a newspaper.
jabbrwockeyJul 21, 2010
The Economist does.
zarrel40Jul 21, 2010
pwned! Pay walls are stupid.
sen5241Jul 21, 2010
That's kind of like asking people to pay for TV shows!
wait...
troypdxJul 21, 2010
I'm actually ancient enough to remember when everyone received their tv shows for free through the air... it was like magic.
boredofapathyJul 21, 2010
They act as though their content is exclusive on the internet. Give me a break.
aplusjimagesJul 21, 2010
I wonder who's getting fired for this oopsy?
groovydooJul 21, 2010
Maybe that 10% that pay provide enough income to support the site?
inactiveuserJul 21, 2010
"The site" is a template powered by a CMS data system that displays the same news across thousands of sites. News Limited etc all use this method. You just tick the box and publish.
idoitonlineJul 21, 2010
Okay you all know this article is not referring to time.com (time magazine), right?
heliox2000Aug 3, 2010
LOL...no I didn't :-)
factJul 21, 2010
If your readership goes down 90%, you blew it.
datastorageguyJul 25, 2010
Unless of course you actually make more money than when the site was free......
tman01Jul 21, 2010
Too many free alternatives for this model to work at this time.
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
What free alternatives? Nothing is free.
The simple fact is this: there is only free online news today because offline print advertising is there to subsidize it.
No stand-alone online operation can afford to stay in business through online advertising and still produce journalism at the same level as a newspaper.
jstock23Jul 21, 2010
But the fact is, "...journalism at the same level as a newspaper," isn't in demand, so why supply it?
paduraJul 22, 2010
There are very good blogs around.
grindelwaldJul 21, 2010
One thing that should not be about profit is News. It should be a f**king right for every citizen. f**k Murdoch and everything he stands for.
silastomorrowJul 21, 2010
Yeah, great idea. And since it's free, it would be paid for by the government. That's nice....a government news organization. I'd trust it. /s
fordsvt1Jul 21, 2010
And yet the BBC and CBC are better than 95% of major American news outlets.
datastorageguyJul 25, 2010
I would prefer to have a non-governmental organization or business provide the news in a competitive environment than have a state run news source.
Someone dig up Orwell and tell him to do something about this.
paddyosmithJul 21, 2010
its not the news that they are charging for, it is the news gathering and presentation.
hotelintelJul 21, 2010
Hey guyz, always remember that there is impossible within the internet. You can do lot of things when there is internet! You can also hack software or whatever it is you want to download! It just that you need to explore and read! lolComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cubicledroneJul 21, 2010
Let's leave the Times out of the question for a moment so we can bypass all the Murdoch drama.
Here are the facts:
1. If web audiences are determined to be absolutely worthless to web publishers, there will be no Internet. Whatever is left will be s**tty comics, dumbass top ten articles and "dey tuk r jrbs" Everything else will be behind a paywall and why not? At least the people who pay to get in are actually interested.
2. When web audiences take a gorilla-sized piss on companies like Google by default-blocking the entirety of their ad system: a system Google has spent billions of dollars to make as unobtrusive and accomodating as technologically possible, it sends a clear message to publishers that there may be no point in putting any effort into their work.
3. On the interwebz, the dynamics of a new reader are: show up, gulp down a f**kload of bandwidth, take all the free s**t, block all the ads, buy nothing, donate nothing, refuse to comment or e-mail and refuse to tell anyone else even if they liked the site.
It's basically the equivalent of some assh**e walking into a restaurant, ordering $1.12 worth of food, acting like a jackass while demanding sixteen water refills and 29 baskets of free breadsticks, taking a gigantic steaming dump in the restroom that overflows the toilet, leaving no tip and scooping all the candy out of the front counter dish on the way out. For webmasters, this is their "customer" about nine out of ten times. And it doesn't matter who the publisher is. It's the same on all but a very VERY small number of sites.
So the question becomes: under what conditions would you pay to read a web site? Because if there is no way for web sites to make money, and by money we mean enough to support full-time salaried professional writers and artists, then we might as well turn all this s**t off and give up.
nathan45Jul 21, 2010
I predict that once the serious ad money dries, the ads will start bleeding into the news coverage and all of the MSM news stations will transform into gigantic PR departments for whatever corporations still pay them. And If they aren't willing to slant their coverage to benefit their advertisers, they'll go belly up. Evolve or die, right?
Oh wait, that's all already happening...
themachine1Jul 21, 2010
A large number of big news sites probably need to go out of business.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
If sites started vetting their ads for safety and annoyance factors - and prominently stated that fact somewhere on their home page - I would have absolutely no qualms about whitelisting those sites. But every time I feel a little guilty about using AdBlock and try to whitelist Digg (for instance) I get a bunch of extremely invasive ads cluttering up my screen; I end up re-enabling ABP within an hour.
If sites were willing to limit their ads to discreet banners or sidebars - and by discreet I mean something which doesn't flash, screech, pop out into my usable space, start doing funky s**t when I hover my cursor over it, and so on - I would actually be MORE willing to check out their products, especially if the ads were targeted well. For instance, I've clicked on FAR more text ads which show up above my Gmail inbox (despite ABP, I might add!!) than on all other ads PUT TOGETHER. I simply refuse to support invasive marketing in any form.
But hell, that's all wishful thinking. Advertisers will never be convinced that sometimes less is more, and sites will continue to take money from anyone who waves a check under their noses, and never mind what it's doing to their revenue long-term.
asrrin29Jul 21, 2010
I've clicked several ads for my gmail inbox, and had I had money at the time, would have purchased stuff from it! simple text ads are FAR more appealing than invasive pop up trash.
dpcxJul 21, 2010
You pulled the first "fact" our of your ass, didn't you? The Internet will not die just because most of the things "here" are free. Your mentality that people are doing things only to get paid is your problem, sorry. :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pkraus109Jul 21, 2010
Your inability to recognize that good content costs money and wit out revenue good writers and content providers can't provide you with that content is your problem, sorry.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
The only people with enough time on their hands to do things for free are twenty-somethings living in their parents basements organizing DDOS attacks against the Church of Scientology. Everyone else needs to at least make a living.
pakobedejoJul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
agharJul 21, 2010
What you fail to recognize is that modern business, especially publicly traded ones, care about nothing but quarterly profits. If the business isn't making profit anymore, the stockholders trade it off until some sucker is stuck with a company that's good for nothing more than liquidation. In this environment, it doesn't matter who the customer is or how they want to be treated... All that the company thinks is this: "How can I milk this person for money."
When all businesses don't have their customer's needs at heart, the type of customer they get is nothing but their just deserts.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Meeting customer's needs and profiting are traditionally hand-in-hand. Companies that look to exploit their customers without reciprocating value almost never survive; there is just too much competition.
And your sentiment that "modern business" only care about profits is stupid, considering all businesses only care about profits since forever. Now some may go about making those profits in a more responsible manner, but anybody who ignores their profits is not running their business responsibly.
zihuatanejoJul 21, 2010
The amount of people who use adblock is greatly exaggerated. Most people are too stupid to figure out what it is or how to use it. Coincidentally, these are the same people who are more likely to be effected by the ads themselves. "Oh s**t, I won a free ipod! I better click!"
sparky9292Jul 21, 2010
"The amount of people who use adblock is greatly exaggerated."
Completely agree. I'd say that less than 1% of the web population uses adblock. Saying that everyone is blocking ads is FUD.
skinturtleJul 21, 2010
Why does anybody need to make money from the net?
Just because someone's raking in the cash from ads doesn't mean their content is quality. The ad revenue concept is just a side benefit. The net's original purpose was to share information.
There are just people out there who think they got make money off everything that we have this issue.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyborg31Jul 21, 2010
"Why does anybody need to make money from the net?"
Do you need to eat? Do you need to pay electricity and gas bills? Do you wear clothes? How are you on the Internet if you have no money?
skinturtleJul 21, 2010
@Cyborg31 - Get a different job and stop using the net for business. It's for sharing information...not a a market place for foaming at the mouth business men with schizophrenic looks on their faces and dollar signs for pupils.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
@skinturtle
This isn't 1991. The internet IS a marketplace. If we were to strip the internet of all money-making ventures we would have no search engines, no news sites, no e-commerce, hardly any of the sites that frequent the front page of Digg (let alone Digg itself), and MUCH MUCH fewer cool apps that make our lives easier.
That's just stupid. Why don't you stop visiting sites that generate revenue or else shut the f**k up with your hypocrisy.
bernlin2000Jul 21, 2010
And that's a question for the people that want to have jobs in those fields, not the consumers. You ranted about how s**tty people can be online vs. in real life, but what are you going/suppose to do about it? If you want to change people's online habits, you have to give them something they will be WILLING to pay for, that they can get elsewhere for free. Its true, those "free" news sources aren't free to the people that provide them, but that's irrelevant to the consumer, or at least it is at the present. So it is the big question: how do you make people care about the effort that gets put in? I haven't heard a good answer yet, and the paywall is definitely not a good one, they way its usually prescribed.
hivoltage815Aug 4, 2010
Problem is, I don't think we are going to like the solution, because at this point it seems an online venture can only be viable if it has tremendous market share. Translation: less competition more monopolies.
funnythatJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
rupprupp29Jul 21, 2010
This means one of two things... either the Times is using an outdated and inconvenient distribution method in the scope of the current competitive market, or it's PIRACY!
gildwulfJul 21, 2010
10% of something is better than 100% of nothing
anonymous1986Jul 21, 2010
You forgot revenues through ads.
yellowsnowconeJul 21, 2010
What revenue through ads? CPMs plummet year-on-year because inventory (page views) rises at an exponential rate while ad spending only increases at a linear rate.
The simple fact is this: there is only free online news today because offline print advertising is there to subsidize it.
No stand-alone online operation can afford to stay in business through online advertising and still produce journalism at the same level as a newspaper.
kyanJul 21, 2010
@yellow. Hey, y'know, i'm really sorry someone pissed on your snow cone an' all, but we heard you the first time. So, now you can SHUT UP!
tripmoon2Jul 21, 2010
Yes, I think he reall needs to STFU. Maybe he or she made some bad investments or their job hangs in the balance on this issue. Whatever it is, they sure seem to have a vested interest in people directly paying for news sites.
cyborg31Jul 21, 2010
Revenue from ads you say...
...meanwhile you rhetorically ask "What ads?" because you have Adblock turned on.
The hypocrisy.
groovydooJul 21, 2010
AP WAS GOING TO CHARGE ME $1,200 a month for up to 100 articles. I was like, "no freaking way!," since I could only run maybe 12 of them that related to my site topic. My site needs to make $2,000 a month to stay up and break even. AD dollars are anemic unless you get about 600,000 page-views a month and I don't want to charge and I would be happy with breaking even.
tgc1Jul 21, 2010
Let's not forget that to serve those 600k per month your bandwidth and server resource allocation charges are going to go through the roof.
jkalJul 21, 2010
@FurtThePirate, good point, however from the users perspective it is a very useful site and it's free.
also it even highlights the current shift in "business models", there are many developers who also contribute to the development of that site for free, they either have another job or get something else out of it.
fullbackJul 21, 2010
So here we have another out-of-touch, self-absorbed business owner, like Trump, who got his start from his wealthy daddy.
Anyone else notice that Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has now slipped into crap, superficial reporting? It's astounding how one man can single-handedly turn everything he touches into s**t... yet they still make money. Apparently, there is money to be made in s**t, since the public has an appetite for s**t.
banosdJul 21, 2010
Didn't the New York Times try something like that as well. I removed the bookmark once they even suggested they were going to try it
anothrnbdyJul 21, 2010
Kinda but not really. They have a certain number of articles you can read for free before you hit the pay wall. I don't know what the number is, but I regularly read 10+ a day and I have only hit the wall once and that took me a few hours of solid reading.
WSJ and Financial Times also do this (and more undoubtedly). TBH, I don't mind this model at all.
kyanJul 21, 2010
FT is great, too. totally worth paying for. And no, I mean no sarcasm here. It's not going to wow soccer moms and college students, but there is really good stuff on the FT when you need to know a market really thoroughly.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
At one time NY Times put some of their editorial content behind a paywall. They moved away from that model within a couple of years because readership of those specific articles tanked so drastically.
ismhmrJul 21, 2010
I think the pay thing is a bad idea, but still... The mainstream media would be able to keep it's audience if it was honest, and didn't read off government propaganda.
YouSaidJul 21, 2010
Oh no!!! I don't think anyone could have seen that coming......
*Facepalm*
softboiledJul 21, 2010
Murdoch is a douche. But a shrewd money making douche.
urmyhartbstoprJul 21, 2010
Well on one hand it sucks for newspaper. On the other hand, it's Murdoch...
Newspaper have to get money somewhere to pay their reporters to go out to the world and report quality news. The fact is how they go about doing this with most information source for people are the internet is something they should figure it out soon.
For Murdoch, he's a douche, I don't think I trust any of his news source, except for Smith Shephard. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ejpusaJul 21, 2010
Money goes to where it's treated the nicest:
Apple is selling iPads and iPhones "as fast as we can make them" and "working around the clock to try to get supply and demand in balance," Tim Cook, the company's operating chief, said on a conference call.
He said the company hadn't seen any decline in iPhone 4 demand because of antenna problems. "My phone is ringing off the hook from people that want more supply," Mr. Cook said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379473713612064.html
noiseacheyJul 21, 2010
Something that was once free has become chargeable...and no one wants to pay. Almost all the content can be had elsewhere just reworded, still for free.
Traffic crashes overnight.
Well f**k me, I'd never have guessed that.
hunzoloJul 21, 2010
Times... they are a-changin'...