Would you pay for online news?
Would you pay for your previously free online newspaper, or go elsewhere to find out what’s going on in the world?
In the UK, the Times recently started to charge for access to its online content. To read content that was previously made available at no cost, people now need to pay £1.00 per day (roughly $1.60) or take out a subscription for £2.00 ($3.20) per week. The Times is not the first paper to try to generate revenue from online content: in 2005, the New York Times introduced charges for its editorial and comment pieces, but the arrangement was canned after an outcry from readers. Other newspapers, however, have been able to implement fees successfully – both the Wall Street Journal and the UK’s Financial Times both charge for access to certain content.
With sales of print newspapers steadily declining, it’s certainly understandable that they’re looking to alternative revenue schemes – the question, however, is whether or not people will be willing to pay from something that they’ve become accustomed to being free. And while pay-to-read plans have worked for certain newspapers, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they’ll work for others as the readers of both the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times tend to have above average incomes.
Do you think this spells the end of free online news? And would you be willing to pay to read a Canadian paper online? Leave a comment and let us know!
I will never pay for news online. Just another bunch of greedy minded people on the take. My radio and TV work fine thank you, not that you can believe anything you hear from any news agency anymore.
You get what you pay for. If all you are looking for is the media trash that you would find on TV or in the National Enquirer then it doesn’t make sense to pay. On the other hand if you want intelligent wide ranging analysis that you would get from the New York Times of the Wall Street Journal it worthwhile to pay extra.
No! Emphatically no!
As stated in the article, news services like New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are pay news services and are meant for the “above average” income earner I suppose they are OK if you want to subscribe to US propaganda. Why not read news from web sites from around the world and get a taste for what’s happening in the real world and not just the financial bandits of the US.
By the way the National Enquirer isn’t a news paper, it’s a rag.
NOT A AHANCE IN HELL !!!!!!!
Hey Mr. Spock…People read the NYT and WSJ because they are good newpapers. Take you anti-American-any-opportunity-to-rag-on-about-America- all-Canadian-knee-jerking elsewhere!
No, I would never pay to read a paper online – I’d sooner go back to reading the real thing and paying for that. There is something about the flipping of the pages. Besides news is available online from other sources – mind you they’ll probably soon start charging too then where will you be Mr. Spock??
I was born and raised in the city of Toronto. As a youth I delivered the Toronto Star to subscribers doors. As far back as I can remember the Star was the paper read in our home. I live outxide the Toronto area and also spend my winters in the USA. I read the on line edition of the Toronto Star. I realize they don’t get any revenue from me. So, if they decided to start charging for access to the nespaper on line. I would pay for it just to keep abrest of what is going on in Toronto as well as the surrounding area. I guess you could sign me as set in my ways.
Sincerely,
William G Trent.
[...] print newspapers are in decline. According to a recent report (link to PDF) entitled The Evolution of News and the Internet by the [...]