31–40 of 52 posts
New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for. They have some of the best journalism around (NYT for straight news, New Yorker for editorial, long-form, & culture pieces). I think New Yorker's pay wall will probably be a success. I was already prepared to pay for a subscription when the time came.
I would all throw in The Agent about how the CIA torpedoed the FBI investigation in Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 as required reading http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/the-agent?curre...
I think it's pretty sad that so many people balk at paying very modest amounts of money for high-quality material. It's as though everything that's available on the web should be free, just because it's on the web. It's the same with people moaning about paying a couple of dollars for an app or even installing pirated versions rather than paying. There's something seriously wrong here. The New Yorker costs $50/year -…
I think it's pretty sad that so many people balk at paying very modest amounts of money for high-quality material. It's as though everything that's available on the web should be free, just because it's on the web. It's the same with people moaning about paying a couple of dollars for an app or even installing pirated versions rather than paying. There's something seriously wrong here. The New Yorker costs $50/year -…
Case in point: NY Times. Home delivery to where I live (SF, CA) for a week: $8.45
Full digital access: $8.75 (or $5.00 for Tablet. Or $3.75 for smartphone. Really??)
Make the all-digital version reasonable considering the savings in printing and distribution, and I'll buy. But right now their attitude is: only the rich people have tablets and smartphones anyways, so let's sock it to them.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pay wall isn't meant to attract people who "rarely read" the New Yorker. Those are the consumers they are OK with losing because they didn't make up an appreciable demographic for their business model anyway.
Readers are readers. They now have zero chance of converting me into a paying subscriber, since I can't read their articles. With a more flexible paywall, I can be encouraged to subscribe every time I'm linked to an article.
I think it's pretty sad that so many people balk at paying very modest amounts of money for high-quality material. It's as though everything that's available on the web should be free, just because it's on the web. It's the same with people moaning about paying a couple of dollars for an app or even installing pirated versions rather than paying. There's something seriously wrong here. The New Yorker costs $50/year -…
My main problem is with the fact that these publications (not necessarily New Yorker) charge me as much (or even more) as the printed version for the digital version, even though the costs associated with the digital version are significantly lower: no printing, no mailing, no delivery, etc. Case in point: NY Times. Home delivery to where I live (SF, CA) for a week: $8.45 Full digital access: $8.75 (or $5.00 for Tabl…
For instance, my local paper has turned from being reliable in reporting on local issues and having seasoned reporters, to being not much more than an entertainment company with young, inexperienced reporters who don't spend more than 10 minutes writing articles.
Now we see outlets like NYT, New Yorker, and others, even bloggers (such as Andrew Sullivan), going to a paywall model and producing quality content that's worth paying for. Hopefully this is a trend more people realize that you get what you pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might not object to paying 50 bucks a year, but I read articles shared by dozens of people on different websites so it would be more like ten times that, to different publications. I very rarely actually go to any one publications website.
I'm sure there's a better way for authors to get paid. Would you pay (say) $1 for a credit for any five articles from the archives of a magazine, with free previews to help you decide? Or would you pay for a Netflix-like service for long-form materials?
Make it so that some articles cost more and it just becomes too complicated.
I think it's pretty sad that so many people balk at paying very modest amounts of money for high-quality material. It's as though everything that's available on the web should be free, just because it's on the web. It's the same with people moaning about paying a couple of dollars for an app or even installing pirated versions rather than paying. There's something seriously wrong here. The New Yorker costs $50/year -…
We've had this thing to deliver content for 20 years (the web) but in the same 20 years no one has invented a simple way to pay for the content. I'll balk at 50 dollars a year the same way I'll balk at 3500 dollars worth of gourmet coffees paid on January 1st. Just let me spend small amounts so I don't become aware of my own habits.
New Yorker and NYT are two of the only old school media companies whose content I would still pay for. They have some of the best journalism around (NYT for straight news, New Yorker for editorial, long-form, & culture pieces). I think New Yorker's pay wall will probably be a success. I was already prepared to pay for a subscription when the time came.
On the other side, I rarely read the New Yorker. I enjoy the occasional article that pops up here, but I wouldn't pay to read any of them. They'll lose me as a reader by going behind a paywall.
Then why should they care about you? If you're not willing to give them money you shouldn't expect them to give you content for free.