I wouldn’t mind paying for the ONE article of this site I want to read but no, you either buy a subscription for every newsplayform you want to read pawall articles from or you’re out of luck.
Buddy, people have been paying for news since the first paper was printed and someone paid for it in whatever coin they had. It needs income, that’s just how it is.
What happened was the internet came along and advertisers started footing the bill entirely while readers got it into their heads that news was an inherently free thing, and that it’s somehow shameful for newspapers to seek income. That advertising-only model has stopped being a sufficent source of income, so the price is now being placed back on the readers directly, as it had been for centuries before the first internet article was published. It’s not unusual or new, but it would certainly feel that way to someone that was raised by the internet.
I think the difference here is paying for a single newspaper vs having to get recurring subscriptions that are a pain to cancel. With print media, if I want to check multiple sources’ take on an issue, I could go out and buy 5 different newspapers, and that’s it. But with online news, I’d have to spend like an hour cancelling all the subscriptions after I’m done and if I forget to cancel any i’ll realise when I’m down like £50 6 months later.
Also don’t like having to enter personal details into so many websites.
Thank god for Archive.org.
I wonder why no news company has tried the ‘buy today’s digital newspaper for £1 and that’s that’ approach. I could be wrong and maybe someone has, haven’t seen it though.
Yes and no. Newspapers could be read the next day, after the original purchaser was done with it. And it was easy for a restaurant or business to share newspapers among many clients. Plus of course radio still provided free news that was quality.
The big problem now is that the best news sources are the most locked down. And the worst news sources are the most open. So it is difficult for a quality piece to make the rounds. Even if a link to an article could be shared for free, even if the website was locked down, things would be a lot better.
Finally newspapers charged for the cost of printing but made money off of advertising and classifieds. There is very little cost (per view) to digital publishing. If newspapers had embraced the Web 20 years ago they could have been Facebook or eBay, rather than having all there core revenue fall away.
Don’t forget, in a lot of instances, the paper was also delivered to your house. Yes, vending machines were there, and there were news stands, but a decent amount of people had them thrown at their house every morning.
If newspapers had embraced the Web 20 years ago they could have been Facebook or eBay, rather than having all there core revenue fall away.
Could you expand on this? I have a hard time imagining high quality journalism outcompeting social media, since its content is simply so much slower to produce and less entertaining.
I was a young programmer during the dot com boom. Old school companies like sears and newspapers were scared of the internet. They would occasionally try something small and half hearted on the web but never really tried to figure it out.
Sears is a great example. 20 years before the web they had a functioning mail order service with stores and warehouse all over the US. They were very close to what a modern Amazon is, without the web presence or rapid delivery. If they were brave they could have been Amazon, selling online and delivering to there extensive store network.
Newspapers had a very busy classified section. That could have been moved online easily enough. But they wanted to charge for there classifieds, while eBay or Crageslist let you post for free, making money off of add revenue or a broker fee.
They also were very popular with local advertisers, and could have transitioned there newspapers online for free with the same local advertisers. Instead they tried to charge or resisted being online at all, leaving room for other services like yahoo (later Facebook and Google news) to fill in the news business.
Finally if they had been smart they could have made a news sharing service among the papers (nexus, etc) that could have forced Google news to pay a small fee every time they shared a story, providing a steady revenue service.
I see a time in the future where traditional papers fully die, and something new rises from the ashes. My guess is it will be a return to local news, but with a very small staff running the whole show online.
“Had they been brave” for Sears means axing or disincentivizing their entire income stream of a nationwide chain of mega stores in malls, etc. It’s not that what you’re saying is wrong, it’s just that these scenarios don’t happen for a reason. They would have decimated their reliable revenue streams when the time was “right” and by the time it was too late, well… no money to invest as you’re closing stores and in the red.
As someone who worked IT in a newspaper around 20 years ago: Higher ups would basically laugh at you if you even mentioned web browsing or that they might want make their news more available online.
In their minds it was a fad that would come and go just like 3d movies keep doing over and over. They refused to see computers as anything beyond strictly electronic typewriters with a fancy preview. The only reason the photography department even got proper monitors and such, is because it was cheaper than having to keep developing film on-site.
They still had a few monochrome black/green monitors around 2000. And they were only replaced because it became unsuable for anything but the same text editor, since the menu options were so burned in you couldn’t read the menu on other programs.
