What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
154 Comments
- 3rdDay, on 10/10/2009, -6/+61There is a battle over paid online content coming, and a I think Rupert Murdoch is going to lose. The Economist has nothing to gain by trying to follow his model.
- acknotSW, on 10/10/2009, -2/+56More like an enormous ***** storm that will completely redefine copyright, fair use, patents, and probably several other things that I can't think of right now.
At the end of day though, the one thing that will become clear to everyone is this; In this day and age where anything visual or auditory can be digitized and sent around the world in seconds and where every digital copy can serve as an infinite supply of itself, it's insane to believe that you can release something to millions of people and then control what they do with it.
The next few years are going to be very interesting. - richi, on 10/10/2009, -2/+51We've seen this before with other journals. I give it six months.
BTW, I don't believe the "1,000,000 paid WSJ subscribers" stat for one minute. - spookyttws, on 10/10/2009, -3/+31What a great move, especially with the economy how it is. I can not think of a better way to dramatically increase the users of your site.
- harsesus, on 10/10/2009, -5/+28ha - good luck with that... hmmm, read the economist for moneyz or read 500 billion other sources free, hmmm hmmm, decisions decisions
- ceredron, on 10/10/2009, -1/+24the economist is a great magazine, don't get me wrong, but I'm not paying to read articles online. I'm just not. They'll probably keep some of their readership, because of the nature of the reader of the economist (government officials, businessmen with company expenses, etc), but the casual readers are sure to be chased away. Myself included.
- ElectricRebel, on 10/10/2009, -3/+24Thanks to computers, information is a public good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Capitalism works great for private goods, but it ***** sucks for public goods. The sooner society realizes this, the sooner we can move on. - phatfiend, on 10/10/2009, -1/+14I don't see what is so horrible about paying for decent content. 99% of media on the net is complete *****.
- boneill428, on 10/10/2009, -1/+12I'm wondering if the paid sites will still show ads on them.
- achansen121, on 10/10/2009, -2/+12You'd think a magazine called The Economist should understand that, but I guess not.
- MacHarborGuy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+9free internet? free power? free food? free place to live?
call me when utopia is accepting registrations - Tanbo, on 10/10/2009, -2/+11So now I have to pay to read about how China is the future and the US sucks?
Mmmm...no. - HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+8genitalben:
Wikipedia's policy is "no original research". If there were no other sources creating original research then wikipedia would have nothing on it. If this is the new model for media, then all we will get is corporate PR reprinted, because developing real content and doing real research takes real money. - junyamint, on 10/10/2009, -2/+10I feel like the Economist is one of the few publications that can do this and not lose out. The people who read the Economist and subscribe do so because the content is leaps and bounds beyond anything else out there. If you don't believe me just compare any Economist article with any similar story article on Newsweek/Time/Money/etc and it'll be clear how much superior there content it. People are paying for the insight and analysis of the Economist writing staff. Also it has been said before that their primary audience is not the average person reading news for a basic understanding of world issues. It is for large scale governmental/corporate institutions whose actions tend to affect entire sectors of an economy. They don't have articles on putting your money in this stock or another or 140 ways you can get rich selling baseball cards.
Basically it comes down to the question: What kind of content are you willing to pay for? (Just because the average digg user does not value the Economist content does not automatically mean the online version is going to fail.) - HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+8As an economist subscriber, they spammed us all a few weeks ago to remind us we can get the entire magazine on a podcast as part of our subscription. Which is nice. It's also a lot of content.
- mrfanboy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+7"Currently, all content published within the last year is free of charge. Soon, this access will be limited to articles published within the last 90 days"
I don't really see how this is a problem. Content is still there, you just have to pay to look at the older stuff. The only downside is that they're taking away the print edition page, which is simply a page of links, albeit a useful one. I'll still go to the site because the recent content will still be available for non-subscribers and that's all I read anyway. - Thistlejack, on 10/10/2009, -1/+8In general people who read the Economist aren't cheapskates. I personally will just expense the subscription to my business and keep reading it. Several of my peers get the FT, WSJ delivered to their desk every day, and I'm not even in a fancy pants industry. This is a totally different market segment from Time, Newsweek or any other general interest magazine.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2009, -2/+8This isn't the same as pirating Transformers 2. There isn't the same demand for the kind of information The Economist creates as there is for porn.
Information may be a public good, but no one is under any obligation. If the Economist cannot be paid to produce the content they do, then they just won't create it. And no one will get it, free or not. - Warom, on 10/10/2009, -2/+8Well since I think they are actually worth the subscription I think I will pay, but then again I am old fashion and think if somebody wants to charge for a service which they believe people will pay for they can go for it.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2009, -2/+8Have you ever actually read the magazine? It's quite possible you're not their target customer anyway. That is, unless you think you can responds to one of the ads in it which often read similar to "Nation of Indonesia is hiring for national economics deputy adviser. Applications to:..."
- Zaij, on 10/10/2009, -2/+8It's probably Murdoch and Huffpo people digging you down. Damn I love it when people pick a side and stick to it without rational thought. Third way too much for them.
- erhanaltay, on 10/10/2009, -0/+6As a former subscriber I can confirm this position. I didn't renew my subscription because it IS pricey and switched over to a free subscription of Time magazine. Big mistake. I honestly couldn't find one article worth reading in an issue. It's all pictures, random charts, celebrity quotes. and that's about it...
- errik03, on 10/10/2009, -0/+6Yea the articles can be confusing to the average idiot. Sorry try Cosmo or something
- paulmer2003, on 10/10/2009, -1/+6You are a moron.
The Economist is a brilliant magazine. To compare, "500 billion other free sources" would be a Hyundai Elantra wagon of the 1990's.
The Economist would be a pinnacle of engineering prowess, like an F1 car.
TE is an important magazine, read by notable people worldwide. Do you see ads for anti-depression (and other silly consumer *****) in TE? Not really. You see ads looking to hire people for leadership positions at major organizations... - ElectricRebel, on 10/10/2009, -2/+7The magazine as a consumer product is going to be gone very soon.
The Internet is where the action is at now and no one has successfully used the subscription model. Even porn (which everyone early on thought they had the Internet figured out) is getting destroyed right now thanks to the free tube sites.
Information is a public good and there is nothing they can do about it in the long run. - HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2009, -5/+10Economist subscribers are in general likely too busy making money from doing profitable business to waste their time feeding the magazine into a scanner so they can send it around the world.
Not everyone is a broke college student who has more free time than money. - subliminali, on 10/10/2009, -1/+6wow no kidding. It's well written and always has a ton of different viewpoints in it. It's also a british publication so it's more free from the useless partisanship that is seriously suffocating rational thought here. Oh well, keep getting your 'free' news and see how good it is once all the real journalism has gone bankrupt.
- borez, on 10/10/2009, -3/+8Their demise therefore will be ironic.
- Zaij, on 10/10/2009, -2/+7The difference is that it's actually worth it for The Economist. Hard to find a more intelligent and insightful newspaper than that. Of course, I actually have a subscription (pays for print media? no way!) so I'll still be able to read ***** there whenever I want.
- Ahmon, on 10/10/2009, -1/+6It's sad that people think this way. Investigative journalism has a great value in America. It's going away, and all people can say is how they think that they should keep getting free quality journalism?
There's a definite problem with the Internet when web logs have taken over as a primary source of news. At least some print media aren't continuing the self-destructive practice of devaluing their own work. - filldeviant, on 10/10/2009, -0/+5Damn spot on.
- WraTH017, on 10/10/2009, -2/+7The economist to lose readership. There's people, like me, who don't even sign up for free subscriptions... Good bye ad revenue from casual readers.
- ElectricRebel, on 10/10/2009, -1/+6Actually, it is a fact. Information is non-rival and non-excludable, therefore it is a public good. This is simple deductive logic.
If you care to disprove this fact, then please do so in a formal way. All you offer is opinion. - Georgy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+5Just because the economist is starting to charge a fee for their online content doesn't mean their content is bad, typical digg mentality.
Besides this is the only way these guys can survive, I don't buy the nytimes paper because i can read their stuff online, if i had to pay for it, i would. - onlines, on 10/10/2009, -4/+8Well, good-bye Economist.com from my Google Reader RSS feed.
Why charge for content, which a few people might buy, instead of keeping it free which a lot more people will read, thus increasing web site traffic.
Oh well. - dusanmal, on 10/10/2009, -0/+4Wiki that E.R. links to is just pointless BS. But so is the claim that there is no other alternative. What Economist needs to do is think harder and invent new ways of earning money assuming that the information is free. "Quality publications" that have shut down are just examples of carriage makers who went out of business after the car was invented. No matter the quality of their carriages, as it is pointless when confronted with the new invention of a car.
Best of all would be that they invent some new model, after all they have many great minds working there.
Lacking that, best emerging model for quality information sources like Economist is to merge with providers of gods and services relevant to the specialized public/readership they have. Completely different model than just a publication, but they must evolve like that in order to survive. Good information as in sugar to attract the bees, if you want to do something with the bees vs. old model of just selling sugar to the bees who than profit themselves or are "exploited" by some other system. Harder and different but potentially more profitable if you have the best sugar and know the best way to exploit the bees. - reviewpk, on 10/10/2009, -1/+5:( It is really unfair... for me at least.
- noremorse1, on 10/10/2009, -3/+7Bad business model. I understand they want, and need, to get paid for their efforts but, as far as the internet community is concerned, most will not pay for it.
- MrCheerios, on 10/10/2009, -1/+5What's the alternative? Keep losing business and shut down like a number of other quality publications?
- Spinfusor, on 10/10/2009, -0/+4The Economist is one of the few magazines that had its ad revenue grow last year:
"For the second year in a row, global news and business publication The Economist took the #1 spot on Adweekâs Top 10 list of consumer magazines with standout track records of advertising revenue and page performance [ . . . ]
The Economist, which shot to the top of the list in 2008, grew ad revenue by 25.5% to $131.5 million and ad pages by 4.4%. Circulation was up 9.2%."
http://www.marketingcharts.com/print/the-economist ... - phatfiend, on 10/10/2009, -0/+4They make almost no revene from casual readers so I wouldn't worry about that.
- non00b, on 10/10/2009, -0/+4I'd be surprised if they are even breaking even from that near-worthless casual reader ad market
- rebrad, on 10/11/2009, -0/+3Perhaps the Economist needs to hire a good economist or they'll be out of business soon. Not that they will be missed.
- ahoy, on 10/10/2009, -0/+3The Economist has existed since 1843... I think they know what they're doing
oh, its also one of the best newspaper/magazines out there - burrdugg, on 10/10/2009, -2/+5Number of times I've read The Economist for free = Zero
- ElectricRebel, on 10/10/2009, -0/+3ITT: People that can't accept basic logic.
If something is non-excludable and non-rival, it is a public good, no matter how much this hurts your feelings. - DagonwebNL, on 10/11/2009, -0/+3Catch 22.
If the economist is popular enough to attract mass-appeal then the impetus for someone to link the articles through an U-bend construction (through a country or link or P2P sharing method) almost immediately becomes 100%.
If the economist is just another outdated rag nobody wants to read, then well, it's dying anyways.
Ya can't win. Rupert can whine like a fossil for all he's worth and claim these damn internet pedo's are stealing from his rag, but he'd be as succesful holding water in a cloth bag. It just doesn't work that way. - mobilebond, on 10/10/2009, -6/+9I always prefer everything free, if possible.. And it just turns out to be better... Just like Firefox to IE
- non00b, on 10/10/2009, -0/+3Agreed, if people think they can depend solely on blogs for news and great content, think again. I think the blogosphere is an excellent complement to traditional news sources, but it is hardly a replacement.
Guess what? the economist is giving away content they have to pay for to produce (they use real writers who write real stories, and that ain't cheap). If they feel they are not getting sufficient ad revenue giving it away to 'casual readers' (a bad demographic to advertise to anyway), then it makes sense that they would stop giving away content that costs them a fortune to produce.
It is possible they want to target a certain demographic and use targeted advertising, which pays a hell of a lot more than simple web ads. They can filter out the freeloaders with even a small fee. - non00b, on 10/10/2009, -2/+5do you understand that the majority of news stories come from only a few news sources, such as AP and reuters and the large papers that are still big enough to hire real writers and journalists such as the New York Times (who's days may be numbered).
Turn off those taps off and suddenly all your other sources will have no news. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is