Published August 18, 2010
After writing about the Worcester Telegram & Gazette’s new restrictions on free content (here, too), I asked our followers on Twitter and Facebook: Would you pay to read local news online?
I’ll let this Facebook screen shot speak for itself:
Well, the No's have it.
There were many more noes and only a few yeses. One common response: I can get the same content elsewhere.
Buster Pdahsc: No. I can read the exact same news in other newspapers or online news sites.
Austin Castaldi: I would find someone else who offers me comparable service for free. Supported by ads or otherwise. I have no doubt if it isn’t out there already it would appear.
@plannerbill: No, I wouldn’t pay for news online. Their will always be another source that has it for free
Jack Thompson explains a fundamental difference between old and new media:
Internet 101: the ‘net is a linked database. Removing to ability to link to your content removes you from the database, decreases mind-share and drops you into a black hole where the only people who’ll access your content are people who’ve …already accessed more of your content. Recursive content consumption is recursive. The ‘net is an attention economy, and locking your door means nobody will have attention to spare for you.
A few folks clarify that only certain stories go behind the paywall:
Helen: Only articles written by T&G staffed writers will be on a charge basis. Articles available in the local Telegram Towns publications will remain free. If you are a reader or web user, you’ll most likely notice no difference.
Laurie Levitre: If you read the article by the T&G, you’ll see that it’s only locally written articles that are charged, not AP, not breaking news, and then only after 10 per month. I think that if you actually go to the website you’ll notice that you can access a majority at no charge. Try it.
Twitter was more friendly to the pricing model than Facebook:
@AltoidLover: I paid for the NYTimes online and would probably pay for the Globe, as well. Sort of the NPR model, which I support.
@JHKleschinsky in Everett: I will pay for newspapers’ online content. Although it’s being delivered in a different format, it still costs $ to report the news.
@PavlikM: News sites need an easy way to charge small amts for each access. They deserve to be paid, but I won’t subscribe to individual sites.
And @kjp684 makes a suggestion that resonated:
I’d only pay for online newspapers if the pages were free of advertising as a result.
So no one wants to pay for news, even now, after these tries. What’s a newspaper to do?