As pointed out here on the Pulpit, charging people for news is one sure way to get people to stop reading your news. Three months into their own 'pay to read' experiment, Newsday.com has a total of (35) paid subscribers. Yes...THIRTY-FIVE. They paid $4 million to upgrade the site to accept payments, and have made $9,000. Heh. Good riddance. That's the price you pay for not reading the Pulpit Newsday.
Next up: The New York Times.... I'm looking forward to that crash and burn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Three words for you...Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ talked about going free and then RAISED annual fees. What happened? They made more money.
The key is whether you are selling something that people want to pay for. If you are selling air in a jar (ordinary news available for free anywhere) - nobody pays. If you are selling art (unique news analysis or coverage not available anywhere else)- consumers fork over their cash and you make money. 35 subscribers speaks to the poor quality of the product being offered, not the strategy to make people pay for it.
The days of "free" content are largely over for many sites with desirable content. The Times has to go to pay since their free web content is destroying their paper circulation. Remember, every paying customer for the Times is one more than what they had with free content.
Post a Comment