Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#201

Post by tptacek »

Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription.

Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizations like WaPo do anyways.

Realizing in retrospect how trifling the amount of money we're talking about for a subscription is (it's a tiny fraction of my monthly information services bill [cable/Internet, Netflix, &c]), I feel kind of embarrassed for not having done this a long time ago.

I like WaPo but you might prefer something else, like NYT or WSJ. I'm sure all the major papers are solid choices. Most of you are younger than me. Don't be like me! Subscribe to a damn newspaper already.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#202

Post by chillingeffect »

kaspiCZ wrote: post #158
rhaps0dy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.

Let's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?

I recognize that review comes from two sources, direct through sales and indirect, through discovery. So I try to make sure discovery reaches people with the best material and spend the most money to move the most people, persuading them to pay along the path of least resistance....

...which is exactly what the WSJ has been doing.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#203

Post by hendersoon »

melling wrote: post #199
the8472 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone is american

I've paid for the WSJ for over 15 years. There's nothing wrong with actually paying for good content. That business model doesn't need to go away.

I completely agree. The real problem is pricing.

The difference between absolutely free like most content on the internet and the WSJ standard monthly rate of $33/month is truly enormous. The NYT, which I also feel is priced too high, is $15/month.

Remember Netflix costs $10/month-- that's the value proposition they need to compete against.

These content producers should charge $5/month, with no scummy "special introductory offers" where you just _know_ they're going to raise the price and screw you in a couple months. At that price I would subscribe to everything I read.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#204

Post by hacknat »

noobermin wrote: post #99
Gargoyle wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't read articles on a site he owns.

It is a small conundrum, I don't particularly like Murdoch either, but his paper is well regarded and many important pieces have appeared there (like op-ed from public figures for example), and I miss out when I can't have access to WSJ articles. I wish there were a way to buy access to individual articles .

You are aware that you probably consume other valuable goods and services from companies whose CEOs are just as deplorable, but not as well publicized, right?

If you think a product is valuable, but you don't want to pay for it because you don't like the person selling it that makes you a retributive thief. You don't even have ideology to hide behind, you just don't like someone.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#205

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

briandear wrote: post #166
teej wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would speculate they make between $5 - $20 CPM and they show 3-5 ads per article view. That puts the revenue between 1.5¢ and 10¢ per article pageview. Micropayment approaches and payment processor rates vary, but I'd generalize to probably 30% take rate. So assume 3.5¢ to 7¢ payment per article. Do you pay for every article you load? Do you pay again if you load the article twice? What if you don't like the articl…

A $20 CPM? I'm thinking it's nowhere close. That's exceeding TV level CPMs.

The WSJ is very valuable for enterprise advertising. TV is going to hit a much broader segment of audience, which will include many people who won't care about EnterProse Corp's new widget for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#206

Post by kuschku »

stop_thief wrote: post #175
monochromatic wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft != copyright infringement.

Ah, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.

Ah, that tired old PIRATE-COPIER-MURDERER-TERRORIST argument.

You do realize that copyright protection is an invention to prevent artists from being fucked over by commercial publishers, and was originally not intended to limit people from copying content noncommercially?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#207

Post by i_cant_speel »

colanderman wrote: post #65
pzh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is doing something similar but without tracking the hours spent. They just say "Hey, we see you spend a lot of time around here. Why don't you help us out a bit so we can stay afloat?"

The Guardian's tactic actually got me to pay for news for the first time in my life. For some reason I'm really turned off to the idea of buying a ~$100 subscription to a single paper, but I'll gladly toss $25 here or there in response to good journalism.

Wikipedia did the same thing for me. They request donations and I used it so often that I felt like I had to.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#208

Post by Touche »

azag0 wrote: post #143
abtinf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Journal also started letting people read for free links that are shared on social media by subscribers and staffers. Because the publisher explicitly allows it.

No. The publisher wants their subscribers to be able to share the stuff they pay for with other people. If you use that feature to read for free any content they publish, you misuse it. Now, I am very much against any DRM, I don't even really believe that intellectual property should be protected by law, but I believe that content creators have legitimate (but not necessarily legal) right to be paid for their content…

This argument comes up often but it's not convincing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't distribute your content on a public (free) medium and also control how people consume that content. If you want control of how people use a thing, the internet is the worst possible choice.

It's really simple, if you want to put your content behind a paywall, then put it behind a paywall. Don't leave a backdoor open and then complain when people use that door.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#209

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

colanderman wrote: post #65
pzh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is doing something similar but without tracking the hours spent. They just say "Hey, we see you spend a lot of time around here. Why don't you help us out a bit so we can stay afloat?"

The Guardian's tactic actually got me to pay for news for the first time in my life. For some reason I'm really turned off to the idea of buying a ~$100 subscription to a single paper, but I'll gladly toss $25 here or there in response to good journalism.

I value the guardian's work, but I give a lot more money to the FT (despite not particularly agreeing with their politics). Their world coverage is amazing, they actually cover european/middle eastern/asian politics with local reporters and I have never felt so well informed.

They are also a reliable source of Tory puff-pieces, but that doesn't interest me as much.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#210

Post by monochromatic »

stop_thief wrote: post #175
monochromatic wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft != copyright infringement.

Ah, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.

If I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program?

How is that a linguistic argument?

Post reply on HN