By Kelly IndrieriThe time we’ve been dreading has come...no, not Armageddon, although it may seem like it recently. Actually, I'm talking about paying for online news content. This isn't entirely new, but the New York Times, one of the most well-respected newspapers in the world, just announced this week that beginning March 28 home delivery non-subscribers will have to pay up or go elsewhere for their news. The options are many though, non-subscribers will still be able to access up to 20 online articles for free each month, but will have to take out their wallets and pony up either $15, $20 or $35 a month to get more.
Paying for news content online is a sticky situation and many media corps are still trying to figure out what it will look like exactly. Offering some content for free and then often layering a confusing payment model for other content seems to be the new normal. For instance, WSJ has been doing it for years, Rupert Murdoch recently unveiled a paid iPad-only publication and now the New York Times is throwing their hat in the ring. The question I have is with all of the free content out there, including bloggers and online news sources like CNN and MSNBC, will people really pay for their news or is this a losing game for the big media conglomerates? Me personally, I think I’ll stick to CNN and my free 20 New York Times articles and save my money for the latte I like to drink with my morning news. How about you? Will you pay up or go elsewhere?
2 comments:
Who does your illustrations? They are often subtle and amusing. And no, I ain't paying for nuthin'. There are WAY too many free news sources online.
Ouch. That's asking a latte.
Post a Comment