1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baltimore Sun to start paywall Oct. 10

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Hot and Rickety, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. Hot and Rickety

    Hot and Rickety New Member

    Baltimore Sun to become the first Tribune paper to erect a paywall. Non-subscribers get free access to 15 pages a month. Otherwise, after an introductory offer of 99 cents for four weeks, it's $49.99 for 26 weeks (non-print subscribers) or $29.99 a year (for print subscribers.

  2. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    So print subscribers have to pay to read online, too?
  3. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    It makes a ton of sense if you don't think about it.
  4. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    OK. I will not think about it
  5. SkiptomyLou

    SkiptomyLou Member

    Disappointed. Another paper behind a payroll. Now if I want to read a random Orioles story I can't if I've seen 15 pages in a month. Lame.
  6. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

  7. JJHHI

    JJHHI Member

    Yes, it is so lame and disappointing for newspapers to charge for their content in an effort to reverse an alarming downward trend in revenue that has led to massive layoffs and other budget cuts (i.e. furloughs) at papers across the country.

  8. Good idea, except for the charging subscribers an extra $30 to read the website. Really, that would just encourage me to cancel my subscription and pay the extra $20 for the online-only deal. That would seem to be a better buy.

    Paywalls make perfect sense. But websites should be free to those who have already paid for the dead-tree edition. It's not right to make them pay twice.
  9. SkiptomyLou

    SkiptomyLou Member

    I can see why they do that though. If they don't charge for online content from subscribers, then a subscriber can just share their information with all their friends and then it's free stuff for everybody. It's a stretch, though, I admit.

    I'd just rather them get more ads and let the people read the article sans pay wall
  10. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    Oh, is THAT all it takes?

    Hey, everybody! Skip solved the issue of how to monetize the internet sites! CHEERS, SKIP!
  11. SkiptomyLou

    SkiptomyLou Member

    Why can't the newspaper industry do something similar to what the group Radiohead did. Radiohead offered a CD to fans for however much they wanted to pay for it. They could, for instance, get it for free if they would like. In all, they actually made more per CD than they would have if it was sold in stores.
  12. SkiptomyLou

    SkiptomyLou Member

    I admit I didn't think that one all the way through. It's been a long night
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page