Thread: News Website Paywalls

Originally Posted by q9

You've got it all backwards. The reader isn't buying the product. The product is the readership, that the publisher sells to the advertisers. Paying for newspapers is really just about establishing reliable data - if they were free hobo's would line their cardboard boxes with them while spiking the distribution numbers.

Paywalls are a sign of a sinking ship. It wont be enough to ensure the long term viability of their business, especially when accompanied by a slip of quality due to having no staff to write articles.

Newspapers in particular and magazines to a lesser extent have alwyas been sold at below cost and they are subsidised, by advertising. A successful publication had much more advertising content than editorial.

Advertisiers flocked to the publications that had the largest circulation or readership (they are not the same). I hadn't thought about the relationship between payment and data, although there may be a element of that. However I think sheer cash would be the primary motive as many websites have counters on them that record the number of "hits."

The owner of the Forums can tell you how many have visited the site everyday and probably break it down into the many individual forums. I have no problem with that.

I don't really have a problem with the media trying to get viewers to pay for extended use of their services. The choice is individual. I pretty much choose to ignore them all, am very content to watch, listen and surf the ABC and sincerely hope the next federal goverment will do nothing to reduce these services. I already pay for them via taxes

Regards
Paul

My post above was not specific to news on the net rather the concept that seems to have grown of everything on the net should be free. I can't see where that was ever written in stone and why the expectation has grown.

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Why do people as a rule think that everything on the internet should be free?

That's the wrong question. The real question is why do old businesses think the internet should change to suit the way they want to operate?

Originally Posted by q9

That's the wrong question. The real question is why do old businesses think the internet should change to suit the way they want to operate?

No, the question should be....if I choose to provide a service vai the internet and charge for that service why shouldn't those that choose to not pay for it? I ask the question again, where is it written that everything on the net must be free, I can't find it.

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

...... the concept that seems to have grown of everything on the net should be free. I can't see where that was ever written in stone and why the expectation has grown.

Quite simple really. Ever since Microsoft put out the first MSDos which crashed so regularly that every 6 months you needed an upgrade or get a hacker to fix it.

Most choose the hacker option and the early precursor to the internet (remember dedicated bulletin boards you dialed directly into by bypassing the old PMG metering system ) was awash with people helping each other and developing freeware software.

So the fault is clearly with Microsoft.


Peter.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I found a different way to get around the paywalls. I would never buy a paper copy of the HeraldSun, have never read even one article on their website, so what they do doesn't bother me.

I do read some articles on The Age website, but do more headline scanning than anything else, so I doubt that the 30 articles will be a limiting factor for me.

I find that over the last 12 months or so I have gravitated to 2 news websites I am already paying for as a taxpayer, ABC News and SBS News, a far wider news coverage on both and both realise there is a whole world outside of Australia and sports wise, a whole world of sport outside of Ozzie Rules.Coincidentally, these are also the only TV news services I watch.

i do look at the smh and age online and wouldn't pay for either physical newspaper nor for them online, not even for column 8 and the moir, pope, campbell and wilcox cartoons (which i think are the best)

also use abc news but all those news sources have limitations too ... i reckon there is a "laziness" with the journos there ... too much regurgitate the press release type journalism and not much (or at least thorough analysis) ... maybe not the fault of the journos themselves

in the herald, the gittins items are an exception (as was jessica irvine's pieces although i haven't seen anything from her for a long while) ... if i am looking for analysis that i don't have to do myself, i go to conversation.com.au ... generally pretty good and have a disclaimer about any interests that the author might have that could affect the piece ... that may not be perfect mind you but is much better than the papers ... they have interesting pieces at the moment of "fact checkers" analysing some of the pollies' stuff

i actually don't have television any more (by choice since year 2000) but would consider it most untrustworthy anyway ... i listen to news radio or radio national in the car but otherwise get my news from the internet


regards david

Meh. Sites that want to monetize their content should simply add:

User-Agent: *
Disallow: /

To their robots.txt file.

Problem solved. No freeloaders.

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

No, the question should be....if I choose to provide a service vai the internet and charge for that service why shouldn't those that choose to not pay for it? I ask the question again, where is it written that everything on the net must be free, I can't find it.

Silly question which has an obvious answer. My answer is that the internet (net) IS free (it's written here). The infrastructure that enables it isn't. A great percentage of websites are placed there to sell something, be it ideology, physical items or ideas. Some websites are simply for entertainment. The onus is upon the provider of the webpage to generate enough interest to support the existence of the website. As one astute reader on this thread stated, when you start asking for payment, then you're in trouble.

So now Chris, I must ask the question, where is it written, specifically, that the internet must cost?

Originally Posted by robbygard

i do look at the smh and age online and wouldn't pay for either physical newspaper nor for them online, not even for column 8 and the moir, pope, campbell and wilcox cartoons (which i think are the best)

also use abc news but all those news sources have limitations too ... i reckon there is a "laziness" with the journos there ... too much regurgitate the press release type journalism and not much (or at least thorough analysis) ... maybe not the fault of the journos themselves

in the herald, the gittins items are an exception (as was jessica irvine's pieces although i haven't seen anything from her for a long while) ... if i am looking for analysis that i don't have to do myself, i go to conversation.com.au ... generally pretty good and have a disclaimer about any interests that the author might have that could affect the piece ... that may not be perfect mind you but is much better than the papers ... they have interesting pieces at the moment of "fact checkers" analysing some of the pollies' stuff

i actually don't have television any more (by choice since year 2000) but would consider it most untrustworthy anyway ... i listen to news radio or radio national in the car but otherwise get my news from the internet


regards david

David, the website 'conversation.com.au' sounds interesting however the domain itself is up for sale.

Interesting you don't have a TV, I could quite easily do without one. Saying that, I wouldn't be without the internet. Funny thing happened the other day, our kids (7 & 5), have never watched commercial TV but, when they did, they got peed off with the commercials, didn't know what they were!

Hi Scott

I think David is referring to

http://theconversation.com/au

Regards
Danny

Originally Posted by danny.s

Hi Scott

I think David is referring to

The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.

Thanks Danny

Originally Posted by Scott

David, the website 'conversation.com.au' sounds interesting however the domain itself is up for sale.

Interesting you don't have a TV, I could quite easily do without one. Saying that, I wouldn't be without the internet. Funny thing happened the other day, our kids (7 & 5), have never watched commercial TV but, when they did, they got peed off with the commercials, didn't know what they were!

sorry my fault theconversation.com.au (or perhaps .edu.au)

i hate television because it drags my attention and i can't help myself ... a while ago i had dinner at the tavern in terrey hills (when my wife was either rehearsing or playing in sydney) ... they always have a couple of sports channels on at any time and i find myself watching tiddlywinks or something just because it is on

i wouldn't be without the internet either ... i sometimes watch dvd's or go to the movies but not even so keen on that

regards david

Originally Posted by danny.s

Hi Scott

I think David is referring to

The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.

Regards
Danny

thanks danny ... slow as well as inaccurate typist