After a slow start, The New York Times is seeing modest gains in online subscribers after it threw up its own pay walls two years ago. Read this piece by Poynter.org blogger Rick Edmonds – "At New York Times, 65% of digital-only subscribers are ‘entirely new’" – and, in at least four sentences describe your opinion about it AND indicate how you feel about paying for online news.
Paying for an online news subscription is out of the question. Although it is a great way for the New York Times to make money, it is kind of ridiculous. Why pay for news when there are various other sources that are free, usually covering the same stories. It is obviously more for the business itself than for the consumer, so why not just go to another news source that is free.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand why the New York Times has implemented a pay wall. It is a great way for them to increase their revenue, but looking from a consumer standpoint it is absurd for them to ask for money to gain access to their news website. There are plenty of other resources available to consume news that are free. I don't believe that the New York Times offers something so much more unique then other free news sources to the point where I would pay to view their news.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the concept of pay walls, however they will never be as successful as hoped. The idea of paying for news online will never resonate with some people. There are so many other options too. Many other news outlets have completely free access to the same information. Advertisements should be the primary source of income on online new sites. I understand why the New York Times would want to charge for the online content, but I do not think it will ever be as successful as a print source.
ReplyDeleteI understand why pay walls are necessary and I think it's fair to pay for newspapers and magazines, but we have become spoiled when it comes to getting news online for free. The Times is a top news source to many but when people have to choose between getting news from somewhere else for free or staying loyal to the Times and paying, more than not will use another news source. I like the idea of paying a fee and having access to their content on a tablet, smart phone and online but there's always the matter of deciding what amount people will be willing to pay and what is fair.
ReplyDeleteI'm firmly against charging for any kind of online content. The internet's entire purpose in my opinion is for the free exchange of information and ideas. Understanding that, from a business standpoint, everything is going digital and money has to be made, I still feel that charging for online subscriptions goes against what the internet was originally intended to be used for. Perhaps having free access to breaking news, but having to pay for access to the archives should be implemented.
ReplyDeleteBob Dylan was right, the Times literally are a-changin.
I understand why the pay walls may be necessary. They seem to need more money and sales may have slipped over the years. Many people will laugh and find it funny, crazy, or stupid to pay for news because there are so many other sources. But there are those who enjoy New York Times and do not want there news from anywhere else and find it affordable to pay for news online. Personally, if I have to pay for any kind of news I will wait to hear it from someone else unless it was absolutely necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs a consumer with many free news sources at my disposal, I would not pay for news. I understand that many people are particular of where they receive their news, but I am not one of them. While there are many inaccurate and biased news sites online, there are just as many credible news sites. In addition, there are enough uninformed citizens in this country, why give them a reason to stay uninformed? People should know what is going on in the world they live in and it should be as easy as possible to access.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about pay walls I thought they were a little ridiculous because if it was online it should be fair game. However, now being in a situation where I could become a journalist I feel like they are necessary for the writers to get payed for their work. I think the reason there is an increase in new comers is because they know times are changing and internet is the new form of getting news. They think they need to move towards the new generation of how news is being processed.
ReplyDeleteWith online news becoming one of the leading ways for people to find out about current events it makes sense that news companies would start charging for their content to maximize profit. I think readers will give in and pay for online news when all online news companies put up pay walls and so the readers are left with no other options of obtaining online news. Until then, as an online news reader reader I would try to find other sites that had similar content for free. I do believe pay walls will eventually be implemented to all sites because of how prevalent technology is becoming in our every day world.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes total sense for companies to put up pay walls. So many people get their news from the Internet and they pay nothing for it so I can understand why companies would want to charge for the news they put out. I think there are also many people who would pay for it. If all sites charged to read their news then what choice do you have but to pay? Also, some just genuinely wouldn't mind paying because they like getting news from that specific place. Personally, I think it would be a little ridiculous but I understand
ReplyDeleteWhen pay walls were first brought to my attention I thought it was ridiculous. The internet is a way for people to explore ideas, access the news, and to do so without paying a penny. Of course, I was neglecting the fact that companies also have to get paid: reporting and publishing the news to the public is their job. Rarely do I ever see anyone anymore pick up a newspaper, so the idea of paying for online news is understandable and relatable. Since journalism is what I am majoring in, I then begin to look at this situation from a different angle and realize the reasons behind it. If it weren't for Times, CNN, FOX or any other news source, we, as a country, would have no ways of being updated on current events. Even just by taking three journalism classes so far, I have realized how hard reporters have to work, and not being paid appropriately for it is unreasonable. So yes, I actually do think I would pay for online news.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with pay walls. The interesting fact here is that one of the seminal American news providers has changed courses. The Times has essentially become a value added product since there are so many other free news outlets. You can get the news story from anywhere, but you can only get the New York Times story from the New York Times. If a company has a value added product for which a consumer is willing to pay a premium, by all means it should have the right to do so. No one is being forced to buy the subscription, and no one is being restricted from obtaining the subscription. Why should something that has never been free to acquire in the past, suddenly be free today? If you're good at something, never do it for free.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of pay walls is a good idea for online subscribers. That is one of the best ways to keep making money from customers since most people use mobile devices. The customers will still get the same news and will be able to access it whenever they want not having to wait for deliveries. I think I would pay for online news because my cell phone is usually the only way I find out things, so having the news to my phone would definitely benefit me.
ReplyDeleteI understand the benefits of paywalls. However, speaking as a person who doesn't like paying money where it isn't necessary, I would not pay for online new services. Currently the iPhone offers apps that are one payment of 99 cents. USA today, AP news, and even the New York Times newspaper are available through apps or the "newsstand." So long as these are available, I don't see the point of paying for news. Prior to studying journalism, I would not have paid for news if they had a monthly subscription or a one time fee above the app price. From a company's perspective, though, paywalls are a good idea to get regular subscribers to continue their subscriptions via website, which is often more convenient (as the article states).
ReplyDelete