5 ms·
> "spiegel.de and bild.de have the main article behind a paywall. They don’t do this for important news." As a side note: This seems to me a weird business mo
by JPLeRouzic 4y ago
> "spiegel.de and bild.de have the main article behind a paywall. They don’t do this for important news."
As a side note:
This seems to me a weird business model, why pay for unimportant news?
Wouldn't it make more sense to bring important news behind a paywall?
Can someone explain? Thanks!
- aebtebeten 4y agoIf you paywall important news, everyone will share free articles instead. Does the birdseed press ever paywall? Edit: compare https://www.lemonde.fr https://www.lemonde.fr 's cookie/subscription wall with https://www.thesun.co.uk https://www.thesun.co.uk
- JPLeRouzic 4y agoThanks for taking the time to answer. Yet I fail to see how this answers to my question (I must be dumb): "why paying for unimportant news?" (edit: I don't get the policy from "Le monde" either. For example I see some important news which are paywalled, while other important news are free. Same for unimportant news. It seems the categorization is quite done at random (at least in what I read today). If you take "Les echos" it's clearer, important news are paywalled, which I find more logical as a business model.)
- 082349872349872 4y agoI won't speak for Le Monde's commercial side, but think the concept is that a subscriber considers themselves as paying for all the news; accepts any "freeriding" on important news as a cost of generating the public good of an informed society; and leaves it to NARGs (should any exist) to account for the value proposition differently.