9 ms·

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is complet

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done it this way, I can only conclude that most consumers prefer it that way.

perlpimp 10y ago
I totally agree with you, it would also make me read the article worth the money spent. As a company they must pay salaries of established staff, that sort of stands at odds with per article revenue. Its like this, if business hires people for at least 6months they ought to make an effort to get those people paid and projecting income from penny articles can be substantially difficult.
fovc 10y ago
I posted this somewhere else on this thread, but I've seen a lot of the "I just want to pay 25c per article" comments. Try https://blendle.com https://blendle.com
sgt101 10y ago
I'd be happy to buy an issue at a time - I think $.5 would be a fair price given that there is no printing cost and that the advertising is more valuable as it's micro targeted to me. I'd buy an issue to read a particular article or because I want one to read for general amusement. Subscription feels like monogamy, I've got lots of different things to spend cash on, I don't want to commit at this scale to spending it on things I may not want.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
They need to go iTunes way and unbundle payments for individual articles. The past has shown that people will pay for quality contents. Also they need to make the payment UI super efficient. If I have to take out my credit card every time then forget it.
jay_kyburz 10y ago
I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)
- harryjo 10y ago
  Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?
  - jay_kyburz 10y ago
    Netflix is $9 a month here in Australia.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Netflix provides many times more hours of entertainment than the WSJ could ever hope to.
    - jasonthevillain 10y ago
      If you consider news only an entertainment product, that's a fair comparison. If you want to know what's going on in the world, it's not.
  - helthanatos 10y ago
    Netflix costs too much for what it is. News that you can find anywhere else is certainly not worth much. Yes, depending upon how you wish it to be documented and such, it may be worth it but I don't understand the want to see any more news than the local news and what Google can provide. I'm not against supporting; I just wonder why anyone would spend more than an hour a day reading news from one source.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    "quality news" is rarely consistent or reliable. wsj in particular had some rather absurd hit pieces on bernie sanders.
EduardoBautista 10y ago
https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  Thanks for the link! I just signed up requesting a beta invite. $0.25 per article, with an instant refund sounds fair. I have wanted access to The Economist, etc., but not enough for a full subscription.
  - bmcd 10y ago
    You should see if your local library gives you access to Zinio - I get the Economist (and numerous other publications) for free through ours.
    - stenius 10y ago
      Good tip, but when I was subscribing to the Economist, I found it worth using their app, which was much better, although, not free.
      - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
        IMHO the Economist has the best iPad app for reading longer news/analysis content I have come across. The simplicity of the navigation and the non-nonsens approach to article viewing is just very good. I don't get why others can't do the same.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    The Economist is the only news organ I have consistently found to be worth subscribing to, despite its faults. The stuff in it that you think you're not interested in is almost invariably worth knowing about.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
teej 10y ago
The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That's not the problem. I might be willing pay a lot for news. What I don't want is 100 different newspaper subscriptions. And to say that you should just pick a favorite newspaper and get everything from there is like demanding you decide what books you want before visiting a library.
  - teej 10y ago
    That's exactly the problem with the person I replied to. Maybe there's a micropayment solution that someone will crack the nut on after decades of people talking about it. But that solution is definitely not 5¢ an article for WSJ quality news.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      My personal opinion is that news orgs should operate as non-profits, since profit motive drives them to editorialize and publish things to get money vs publishing things to inform people about what's going on. I want reporting, I want facts, I don't want entertainment.
      - abtinf 10y ago
        You think non-profit "news" sources don't editorialize? Democracy Now doesn't editorialize? State run media doesn't editorialize?
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      Blendle is a decent attempt at per article payment for journalism. I tried it for a few months and was happy, but found out I don't have time to read articles in full anyway. I'm sure it will work for someone else though.
wtf_is_up 10y ago
If you're a student, WSJ has a plan for $50/yr.
- brokenmasonjars 10y ago
  Always worth checking the school library database first as it might be available for free (well, 'free'... not including tuition..)
  - wtf_is_up 10y ago
    I hadn't considered that, but you're right. I was able to find fresh WSJ and Economist for "free" on ProQuest. I still prefer the format of the WSJ site/app, but this could work just as well.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oskarth 10y ago
While I agree, it is probably a case of not being in their target market: - Average age: 40+ - Average household income: 250k+ - Average household net worth: 1.5m+ From http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_.. http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_....
- buzzkills 10y ago
  link doesn't work
- mattraibert 10y ago
  Here is a working link that contains all the the info parent cites: http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Audience%20Profile.pdf http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Au... Also, this is the _actual_ audience not their _target_ audience.
  - omaranto 10y ago
    How do you know it's not also the target audience?
  - hadfgdasf 10y ago
    I wager their print edition subscriber base is considerably wealthier.
idiot_stick 10y ago
So 15 minutes of entertainment time to you (the time spent consuming a WSJ article) is worth 5 or 10 cents? Imagine if you were compensated at the same rate for your work. I suggest you try to find a substitute for those entertainment pennies. If you can, and that item is "free", good for you. But I doubt 5 or 10 cents gets you much.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  A Netflix subscription is around 30 cents per day. Not to mention that 15 minutes is a very generous estimate, the median is probably closer to 3-5 minutes. Given that the article isn't written for me, that sounds rather fair for accessing it. A print subscription to the WSJ is $400/yr or $1.30/issue, and if I spend an hour reading it that comes out to 6 to 11 cents for a 3-to-5-minute article.
- imgabe 10y ago
  If my work could be simultaneously consumed by millions of people and they all wanted to pay 5 or 10 cents, I'd be totally ok with that.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  That's probably more expensive per article then the print product, which included costs of physical production. Journalism has always been about advertisers and scale. The problem now is lowered barriers to entry drove up supply, reducing advertising $ available to "real journalism" and entities like nyt and wsj still have vestigial anchors pulling them down further. Couple that with growing adblocking and it's a bad recipe. How do you put that genie back in the bottle? The net effect has been lowered standards by former standouts in a race to the bottom. I don't see a fix, much less an easy one.
- pascalxus 10y ago
  I speed read. Usually I'm done in less than 30-60 seconds. There's so much filler stuff in there, often.

perlpimp 10y ago

I totally agree with you, it would also make me read the article worth the money spent. As a company they must pay salaries of established staff, that sort of stands at odds with per article revenue. Its like this, if business hires people for at least 6months they ought to make an effort to get those people paid and projecting income from penny articles can be substantially difficult.

fovc 10y ago

I posted this somewhere else on this thread, but I've seen a lot of the "I just want to pay 25c per article" comments. Try https://blendle.com https://blendle.com

sgt101 10y ago

I'd be happy to buy an issue at a time - I think $.5 would be a fair price given that there is no printing cost and that the advertising is more valuable as it's micro targeted to me. I'd buy an issue to read a particular article or because I want one to read for general amusement. Subscription feels like monogamy, I've got lots of different things to spend cash on, I don't want to commit at this scale to spending it on things I may not want.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

They need to go iTunes way and unbundle payments for individual articles. The past has shown that people will pay for quality contents. Also they need to make the payment UI super efficient. If I have to take out my credit card every time then forget it.

jay_kyburz 10y ago

I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)

harryjo 10y ago
Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?
- jay_kyburz 10y ago
  Netflix is $9 a month here in Australia.
- aianus 10y ago
  Netflix provides many times more hours of entertainment than the WSJ could ever hope to.
  - jasonthevillain 10y ago
    If you consider news only an entertainment product, that's a fair comparison. If you want to know what's going on in the world, it's not.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  Netflix costs too much for what it is. News that you can find anywhere else is certainly not worth much. Yes, depending upon how you wish it to be documented and such, it may be worth it but I don't understand the want to see any more news than the local news and what Google can provide. I'm not against supporting; I just wonder why anyone would spend more than an hour a day reading news from one source.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  "quality news" is rarely consistent or reliable. wsj in particular had some rather absurd hit pieces on bernie sanders.

EduardoBautista 10y ago

https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.

mark_l_watson 10y ago
Thanks for the link! I just signed up requesting a beta invite. $0.25 per article, with an instant refund sounds fair. I have wanted access to The Economist, etc., but not enough for a full subscription.
- bmcd 10y ago
  You should see if your local library gives you access to Zinio - I get the Economist (and numerous other publications) for free through ours.
  - stenius 10y ago
    Good tip, but when I was subscribing to the Economist, I found it worth using their app, which was much better, although, not free.
    - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
      IMHO the Economist has the best iPad app for reading longer news/analysis content I have come across. The simplicity of the navigation and the non-nonsens approach to article viewing is just very good. I don't get why others can't do the same.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  The Economist is the only news organ I have consistently found to be worth subscribing to, despite its faults. The stuff in it that you think you're not interested in is almost invariably worth knowing about.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago

teej 10y ago

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

anigbrowl 10y ago
That's not the problem. I might be willing pay a lot for news. What I don't want is 100 different newspaper subscriptions. And to say that you should just pick a favorite newspaper and get everything from there is like demanding you decide what books you want before visiting a library.
- teej 10y ago
  That's exactly the problem with the person I replied to. Maybe there's a micropayment solution that someone will crack the nut on after decades of people talking about it. But that solution is definitely not 5¢ an article for WSJ quality news.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    My personal opinion is that news orgs should operate as non-profits, since profit motive drives them to editorialize and publish things to get money vs publishing things to inform people about what's going on. I want reporting, I want facts, I don't want entertainment.
    - abtinf 10y ago
      You think non-profit "news" sources don't editorialize? Democracy Now doesn't editorialize? State run media doesn't editorialize?
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Blendle is a decent attempt at per article payment for journalism. I tried it for a few months and was happy, but found out I don't have time to read articles in full anyway. I'm sure it will work for someone else though.

wtf_is_up 10y ago

If you're a student, WSJ has a plan for $50/yr.

brokenmasonjars 10y ago
Always worth checking the school library database first as it might be available for free (well, 'free'... not including tuition..)
- wtf_is_up 10y ago
  I hadn't considered that, but you're right. I was able to find fresh WSJ and Economist for "free" on ProQuest. I still prefer the format of the WSJ site/app, but this could work just as well.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oskarth 10y ago

While I agree, it is probably a case of not being in their target market: - Average age: 40+ - Average household income: 250k+ - Average household net worth: 1.5m+ From http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_.. http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_....

buzzkills 10y ago
link doesn't work
mattraibert 10y ago
Here is a working link that contains all the the info parent cites: http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Audience%20Profile.pdf http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Au... Also, this is the _actual_ audience not their _target_ audience.
- omaranto 10y ago
  How do you know it's not also the target audience?
- hadfgdasf 10y ago
  I wager their print edition subscriber base is considerably wealthier.

idiot_stick 10y ago

So 15 minutes of entertainment time to you (the time spent consuming a WSJ article) is worth 5 or 10 cents? Imagine if you were compensated at the same rate for your work. I suggest you try to find a substitute for those entertainment pennies. If you can, and that item is "free", good for you. But I doubt 5 or 10 cents gets you much.

lorenzhs 10y ago
A Netflix subscription is around 30 cents per day. Not to mention that 15 minutes is a very generous estimate, the median is probably closer to 3-5 minutes. Given that the article isn't written for me, that sounds rather fair for accessing it. A print subscription to the WSJ is $400/yr or $1.30/issue, and if I spend an hour reading it that comes out to 6 to 11 cents for a 3-to-5-minute article.
imgabe 10y ago
If my work could be simultaneously consumed by millions of people and they all wanted to pay 5 or 10 cents, I'd be totally ok with that.
nkozyra 10y ago
That's probably more expensive per article then the print product, which included costs of physical production. Journalism has always been about advertisers and scale. The problem now is lowered barriers to entry drove up supply, reducing advertising $ available to "real journalism" and entities like nyt and wsj still have vestigial anchors pulling them down further. Couple that with growing adblocking and it's a bad recipe. How do you put that genie back in the bottle? The net effect has been lowered standards by former standouts in a race to the bottom. I don't see a fix, much less an easy one.
pascalxus 10y ago
I speed read. Usually I'm done in less than 30-60 seconds. There's so much filler stuff in there, often.