Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#51

Post by JKCalhoun » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

Yes, but other outlets with subscriptions still have ads as well. It seems to be a strange holdover from print news where you also had to pay for a newspaper ... with ads.

There was of course a physical paper that had to be printed and delivered so a base cost at the very least kept printing and delivery down to reasonable numbers. The ads could pay the reporters wages, etc.

I'm not sure what the new rationale is for double-paying for the content.

It would seem to my naive brain that the more eyeballs on your ads, the more money you make from the advertisers. Needless to say a paywall (even a free subscription wall) blocks those eyeballs.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#52

Post by alecco » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #28

This is my new HN hobby: looking up pricing for aggressively paywalled content. Annual digital subscription costs (not promo pricing): Reuters: $420 Bloomberg: $419 Financial Times: $372 The Economist: $189

vs Audible $149.50/year 12 books

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#53

Post by JKCalhoun » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #34

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

If subs-only model improves reporting and rids the pubs of propagandizing, I’m all for it. The price we pay now for free news is too high -click bait, us vs them, persistent shallow dives into inane subjects is taking its toll.

> If subs-only model improves reporting and rids the pubs of propagandizing, I’m all for it.

Yeah, if.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#54

Post by Xenoamorphous » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

Most of HN crowd I'm sure can spend a few extra bucks per month to get quality news.

What about not so lucky people, though?

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#55

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

Most of the free alternatives, that is, the ones accessible to the precariate majority, will be propaganda.

This is not a good development.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#56

Post by kemonocode » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

Here's the thing with the proliferation of paywalls in news sites: it just makes disinformation and the spreading of fake news all that much easier if you can't fact-check easily. I understand people need to get paid, but I don't know if this is quite the right way to go.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #54

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

Most of HN crowd I'm sure can spend a few extra bucks per month to get quality news. What about not so lucky people, though?

> What about not so lucky people, though?

If it’s a civic issue, the government could offer them subsidies. Economics are an existential issue for news organisations. It’s unreasonable to foreclose them viable business models on the basis of equal access.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#58

Post by ericmay » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

diveandfight wrote: post #46

mywittyname wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay for NPR. I mean, I know that's different because their content isn't behind a paywall. My mom pays for the NYT, but I think that's mostly for access to their cooking site. I think these big news companies need to form a federation or something where you buy access at one and get rights to read over multiple different magazines.

Apple News+? I know it's not necessarily the most popular or well thought of, but it's the only widespread platform (I'm aware of) that provides that kind of service for the price point I'm wiling to pay; i.e., Netflix-ish monthly fee.

I'm essentially an Apple Fanboy but I've tried Apple News + a few times and I just don't like it. It spends too much time trying to suggest stories, bother me with news, there's ads I can't block, etc. so I just don't use it. Leave me alone! I don't want your suggestions. I don't want to discover new content or follow some trend. At least sequester those things off to some tab or setting or something.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#59

Post by fakedang » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #34

rectang wrote: post #27

Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

If subs-only model improves reporting and rids the pubs of propagandizing, I’m all for it. The price we pay now for free news is too high -click bait, us vs them, persistent shallow dives into inane subjects is taking its toll.

Do you think the average man is going to rely on a news provider like Reuters after this change?

My father reads a lot of third party news but actually fact checks on Reuters. A lot of friends and colleagues skip third party news and read directly from Reuters, because it is free. With this change, I doubt a great many of them will continue with Reuters as a source, and would rather stop at a third-party localized news outlet.

Reuters provides facts, and very little opinion. People believe that facts ought to be free, and only worthy opinions are worth paying for.

Re: Reuters website goes behind paywall in new strategy

#60

Post by lucideer » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:06 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #5

bombcar wrote: post #2

"Reuters.com will remain free for a preview period, but will require users to register after five stories. It is not immediately clear when it will begin charging." Reuters reporting about Reuters in the third person is amusing. "We asked ourselves when we would begin charging but we didn't know."

I used to work at Reuters (last century) - in technology, but had occasional contact with the news side. They would treat it as a badge of honour to be the first to publish stories about Reuters - however embarrassing. There was no possibility of interference by management. I don't know if that's the case now or how many other publishers would live by those rules.

I think Techcrunch is similar w.r.t. Verizon but, given Reuters didn't acquire Reuters, this seems more unusual.