Comments on: Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News.

By: magazine4me2u :: Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News :: January :: 2009

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:01:32 +0000

[...] All Things D Blogs, CA – 23 hours ago Except that you can: The Economist does a (relatively) healthy business while keeping its weekly magazine behind a subscription paywall. … (more) [...]

By: Interesting readings - January 27, 2009 | Sustainable Online Media

Interesting readings - January 27, 2009 | Sustainable Online Media — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:16:15 +0000

[...] Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News [...]

By: Jeremy Villano

Jeremy Villano — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:17:35 +0000

I don’t think this is exactly the argument: “Everyone knows you can’t charge people a penny to read something on the Web–especially a weekly publication.”

Everyone knows WSJ has been doing it for a while, as well as you say, The Economist and Barron’s. The argument is that you can’t get people to pay for non-financial news (Mr. Owens’s foot-stomping “nobody pays for left wing disinformation” not withstanding).

Not to mention, even if it were possible, U.S. News isn’t exactly a news heavyweight that people just have to have.

By: Peter Kafka

Peter Kafka — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:27:45 +0000

Yeah, they do. But the lists (there are several) are their franchises, and they’re right to concentrate on that. People like lists, as you know.

By: Dan Frommer

Dan Frommer — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:43:19 +0000

U.S. News does more than publish a list of colleges?

By: Peter Kafka

Peter Kafka — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:53:51 +0000

Yup, I was distinguishing between weeklies, Mac.
I also don’t think the PDF is a terrible idea in and of itself: For one thing, it means you can read the thing on your iPhone/Berry/Android/Pre when you’re on a plane or in the subway, etc. It just seems like. But I’m really thinking this makes more sense as a print pub that includes a free PDF option as a bonus, rather than a standalone.

By: Mac Beach

Mac Beach — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:36:37 +0000

You mentioned Barron’s but not the WSJ itself, which I’ve been paying for for several years.

Don’t tell me I’m subsidizing the rest of the world!

Or are you making the distinction for weeklies?

Come to think of it, putting any web based publication on a weekly (or monthly) schedule is ridiculous.

And yes, creating any sort of content only available as a downloadable file (PDF is better than the lesser known formats, but not much) pretty much guarantees I won’t get around to reading it. Most despicable of all are the ones that include the sound of a turning page as you flip through them. Are they idiots, or do they take us for idiots?

By: Jack Dreyer

Jack Dreyer — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:56:43 +0000

I really do not see my family paying for a online service that is one week old, specially in this economic state. Why? When as you have said the web is “realtime” and mostly free. I may pay for a very specific site but not a news site.
Jack Dreyer

By: David Owens

David Owens — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:55:41 +0000

nobody pays for left wing disinformation and puff pieces.

By: Ryan Catbird

Ryan Catbird — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:59:50 +0000

Here’s me reading this post: “Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm…. subscription… okay…. mm-hmmm… Economist, Barron’s…. well, maybe this’ll work… okay… mm-hmmm… ‘tailored product,’ okay….. mm-hmmm… maybe it’s not such a bad ide– wait a second… ‘DOWNLOADABLE PDF FILE??!?!’ WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!!?”

By: Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News [MediaMemo] | heave-ho.org

Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News [MediaMemo] | heave-ho.org — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:06:50 +0000

[...] Read the original post: Pay For News Online? Really? Yes, Says U.S. News [MediaMemo] [...]