3 ms·
I don't think the issue is that people aren't willing to pay for it. The problem is, there aren't currently good options for paying for it. If I go to a news si
by imzadi 3y ago
I don't think the issue is that people aren't willing to pay for it. The problem is, there aren't currently good options for paying for it. If I go to a news site and it is paywalled, I just leave. I am not going to subscribe to every single newspaper. If I could easily pay for today's paper (not an individual news story or a full subscription) without giving up all my persona info, I would probably buy 2 - 3 papers a day from various sources.
- alistairSH 3y ago$40/year for the WaPo and you can pay with PayPal or Apple. You don’t give them any more money than any other online vendor.
- bawolff 3y agoThat price point seems high. For example, Netflix is $84/year. Netflix content seems a lot more valuable then simply twice what WaPo provides.
- lupire 3y agoIt is high because most people don't want to pay for a share of news. They'd rather watch TV, and not even the best TV. If you want the best, you need to pay for Max and Disney and Apple and Amazon and the rest.
- bawolff 3y agoAnd if you want the best news you have to pay for more than WaPo. Besides, if you actually like to read why would you be buying washington post? People who like to read usually aren't going into 5 minute long shallow articles, they are getting a book on the topic.
- dhfbshfbu4u3 3y agoI guess if you don’t read that is true.
- alistairSH 3y agoThat’s the plan with ads. If you don’t want to sit through annoying ads, it’s $180/year. Either way, producing quality journalism costs money. And I’m ok paying a reasonable fee for it. :shrug:
- bawolff 3y agoYes, but creating tv/movie is much much more expensive.