3 ms·

I can at least understand Facebook (that I'm on), the NYTimes (that I'm not on), or the twenty other big sites being paywalls, even if I hate it. But random ne

I can at least understand Facebook (that I'm on), the NYTimes (that I'm not on), or the twenty other big sites being paywalls, even if I hate it. But random newspaper from random little place telling to subscribe to their meager content after three articles? What do they really think? I mean, even if I subscribed to my own local news paper in my own little burge, am I really going to be going to the trouble of logging on and so-forth? All the paywalls seem more like excuses publisher make for their failings than anything they could reasonably expect to make money from. It's a lot like scholarly sites charging $25/article. My guess 0% percent of visitor pay this. It's not a price people, it's a price to justify other bullshit.

sailfast 7y ago
The funny thing is that the local burgh paper needs that subscription or it will not be there in a couple of years. They need it a lot more than NYtimes, perhaps who has a bigger global base. My answer to this is yes, absolutely, I will log in and pay for good local news coverage, and I do every day. If you don’t live there but the story explodes for some reason, why not try to get some new subscribers? Asking for money is not a big deal in my opinion. Asking for it by compromising your UX or user privacy, however (“only paid subscribers can view in incognito”) is terrible.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  Why isn't there some sort of coalition between local news sites that allows e.g. a paid subscription to oregonlive.com to allow you access to m[ichigan]live.com, nj.com, and other "local" news across the country? Sinclair Media already owns half the local news broadcasters around the country; why isn't such a setup already done?
  - bradleyankrom 7y ago
    Gannett has done that to an extent. You’ll see the same layout and styling across a lot of local sites as well as usatoday dot com.
buboard 7y ago
> What do they really think Small publishers don't really have the resources to think much about their monetization. Sad that there are not more companies working on monetization really, i was hoping browsers like firefox would step in to help.

sailfast 7y ago

The funny thing is that the local burgh paper needs that subscription or it will not be there in a couple of years. They need it a lot more than NYtimes, perhaps who has a bigger global base. My answer to this is yes, absolutely, I will log in and pay for good local news coverage, and I do every day. If you don’t live there but the story explodes for some reason, why not try to get some new subscribers? Asking for money is not a big deal in my opinion. Asking for it by compromising your UX or user privacy, however (“only paid subscribers can view in incognito”) is terrible.

ddxxdd 7y ago
Why isn't there some sort of coalition between local news sites that allows e.g. a paid subscription to oregonlive.com to allow you access to m[ichigan]live.com, nj.com, and other "local" news across the country? Sinclair Media already owns half the local news broadcasters around the country; why isn't such a setup already done?
- bradleyankrom 7y ago
  Gannett has done that to an extent. You’ll see the same layout and styling across a lot of local sites as well as usatoday dot com.

buboard 7y ago

> What do they really think Small publishers don't really have the resources to think much about their monetization. Sad that there are not more companies working on monetization really, i was hoping browsers like firefox would step in to help.