LA Times going to paywall

New member here, but saw something interesting today. The LA Times moving to a "membership program" or commonly know as a paywall. My company did this in November and seems the trend is gaining more momentum. I believe this is the biggest paper on the West Coast to move to the online pay model. I'm still on the fence, but my paper has seen steady growth through the online subscriptions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-times-20120224,0,1301270.story

 

Allentown has moved to a paywall.

 

15 free stories per 30 days. I'm covered; I just go there for TJ.

 

I'm all but certain all Tribune papers will be shifting to this model soon.

It's also easy as hell to get around, because all you have to do is clear your cookies and you can view 15 more stories. Or, depending on your browser, click Private Browsing.

 

Until someone (or a large group of someones like the LAT and NYT and WP and WSJ and others banding together) goes whole hog, this isn't going to work. The NYT has a paywall right now, but I'll be damned if I can tell you what it is because I never get near the limit.

I am always reminded of Apple. When they started with their dastardly plan of paying for music, they were evil and out of touch and bound for failure because they were the anti-Napster and music should be freeeeeeeee! They stuck with it.

But until news goes behind a paywall -- and lawyers pursue every copyright infringement they can find -- this is like running the ball when you're down by 17 because you don't want to lose by 31.

 

Fixed.

 

Keep reinventing the wheel. Sooner or later you'll find a way to roll.

 

So I'll read even fewer stories from the LA Times?

 

$4 a week. Yikes.

 

Ditto...

 

I believe the Dallas Morning News is already doing that. I think all staff-written copy is only available to subscribers -- no freebies, no limit, at least as far as I know. Don't know how it's working out for them, but they're trying it.

 

I've never understood the logic of the paywall concept. Since the advent of the Internet, speed of access has driven everything. Print has nothing to lose now, so if I were running a newspaper or magazine with a web presence and a struggling print product, I’d control not access to the content, but speed of access to the content. Keep all the content free online as is, but make it S-L-O-W… either slow to load, or slow to navigate from one page to another due to load time or ads. I’m sure there must be some relatively easy software program that can do this, and there may even be a way to prevent copying, like amazon does with its “Look Inside” feature to control unwanted distribution of book content. If a reader really wants to continue to read the site for free, fine, but they’ll have to wait.

But if they want it FAST – like we've become accustomed to receiving everything these days – well, then they have to pay. At this point there are several sites I am absolutely addicted to and/or are necessary for what I do that I read for free every day. If, all of a sudden, (like what’s been happening occasionally by accident), it took me thirty seconds to access each article I wanted to read, or each page, I’d run to the store to buy the hard copy.

But if I had to cough up a small sum – say $5 a month – to access that publication online FAST, I think I’d do that. And if a consortium of publications (like newspapers and magazines) got together and allowed me to select, say, five or eight newspapers from a menu of several hundred publications, I’d pay even more to retain my speed of access, just like I pay more for internet service now to get it fast, than I used to when I was on dial up.