3 ms·
It would just make things worse. If the Times and/or Post were to erect a pay wall, I see things playing out as follows: they lose most of their readers Why? P
by omouse 17y ago
It would just make things worse. If the Times and/or Post were to erect a pay wall, I see things playing out as follows: they lose most of their readers
Why? People pay $$ for the content that just happens to be in newspaper form. They also pay for content that just happens to be on the TV. Why wouldn't they pay on the Web? OH THAT'S RIGHT! Because everyone expects everything for free! We're all a bunch of freeloaders that don't even want to pay for valuable content.
- steveklabnik 17y agoI feel like you're being sarcastic, but regardless: It comes down to scarcity. A physical paper is a good. You're not buying the news, you're buying a paper. People buy cable subscriptions because there aren't any good free alternatives. But news on the Internet? There are _thousands_ of places to get that. And most of them are free. The Times and the Post don't have enough added value to justify the cost.
- andrewtj 17y agoThey would not pay because by and large the content on the sites in question is available elsewhere in one form or another for free. That doesn't indicate that the readership are "freeloaders" (which implies they're somehow taking advantage of the newspapers generosity) — that's people deciding they'd rather not give away their money. It's a value proposition - the newspapers who do not make money on the web do not offer something unique to their readership and hence their advertisers.