Going paywall...

[flexmaster33]

My paper is going to a paywall starting Monday. Long overdue in my opinion, but what should I expect?

 

[SportsGuyBCK]

My paper is going to a paywall starting Monday. Long overdue in my opinion, but what should I expect?

A lot of bitchin' from people who expect to get things (especially the news) for free ...

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

No one to read anything anymore.

 

[Mwilliams685]

Buy some beer for whoever answers the phone, handles social media, deals with public, etc.

 

[flexmaster33]

Yeah...this is why papers should have been on board with this from Day 1...not decades after the fact.
Just saw a post the other day on Twitter about Netflix
"I like your content, I access it all the time, but how dare you expect me to pay $11 a month for the service"
Same with newspapers, why people just expect us to be there is beyond me.
If you value local news be willing to support it ... and yes, that means financially. Our subscription rate is far from breaking the bank.

 

[flexmaster33]

I'm heading out of vacation and due back the day after the paywall goes up, sounds like I should expect full inboxes

 

[Tweener]

Yeah...this is why papers should have been on board with this from Day 1...not decades after the fact.
Just saw a post the other day on Twitter about Netflix
"I like your content, I access it all the time, but how dare you expect me to pay $11 a month for the service"
Same with newspapers, why people just expect us to be there is beyond me.
If you value local news be willing to support it ... and yes, that means financially. Our subscription rate is far from breaking the bank.

What bothers me the most about all the whining is that the cost of a subscription is dirt cheap. If it’s important to people, they should pay the measly $10-20/month. If it isn’t, they should just STHU.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

That's not really all that cheap.

 

[MNgremlin]

We went paywall and then switched back about a year later.

 

[flexmaster33]

We're twice a week ($45 for print/digital or $35 for digital-only) per year. So yeah, you are getting digital access for the cost of a cheap Starbucks each month.

 

[PaperClip529]

We're twice a week ($45 for print/digital or $35 for digital-only) per year. So yeah, you are getting digital access for the cost of a cheap Starbucks each month.

Is this going to be a full paywall or metered?

 

[SoloFlyer]

I hope it's a timed or full paywall.

Metered paywalls are the least effective and most cumbersome to deal with. For one, they're easy to get around via adblockers, private browsing, and other methods. Two, they often simply don't work.

A timed paywall is nice because everyone can read an article when it first goes up, but if it's been up for more than a day, or a week, or whatever the timer is, it goes behind a paywall that can't be worked around.

The most effective is a full paywall, like The Athletic, but it's hard to commit to that switch and it's hard to grab a new audience without making some content free as a teaser.

 

[Fredrick]

Yeah...this is why papers should have been on board with this from Day 1...not decades after the fact.

It was impossible to be on board with this from Day One. People forget too quickly. Go back to Day One. What happened is the consultants and the IT types who installed the systems for individual newspapers told publishers they simply had to give the news away for free online. They said in this new online world, NOBODY would pay for news and they were insistent. The publishers instantly were on board. It's partly because they through the years made MOST of their money on advertising rather than subscriptions. They also have always devalued the work of reporters thinking anybody can write a story (remember the citizen journalism craze? Managing editors were all for it).

 

[Fredrick]

We went paywall and then switched back about a year later.

I can see why. I'm sure very few people were paying for the online product. At some point the newspaper executives probably decided to be relevant at all they had to give away the copy and hope someday ads might be sold.

 

[Tweener]

That's not really all that cheap.

Really? If I’m using a service daily and paying less than a dollar a day, I’d say that’s pretty darn cheap. It’s why I have three digital newspaper subscriptions and don’t mind the less than $2 a day I pay for them.

 

[flexmaster33]

3 free articles per month

I agree, The Athletic is driving a format that should be the standard.

 

[justgladtobehere]

The Boston Globe offers a limited amount of articles a month and won't let you view in a private window. It seems the most effective of the paywall systems I have seen.

 

[WriteThinking]

We went paywall and then switched back about a year later.

Did it help to do that?

 

[CD Boogie]

I hope it's a timed or full paywall.

Metered paywalls are the least effective and most cumbersome to deal with. For one, they're easy to get around via adblockers, private browsing, and other methods. Two, they often simply don't work.

A timed paywall is nice because everyone can read an article when it first goes up, but if it's been up for more than a day, or a week, or whatever the timer is, it goes behind a paywall that can't be worked around.

The most effective is a full paywall, like The Athletic, but it's hard to commit to that switch and it's hard to grab a new audience without making some content free as a teaser.

I can never imagine paying for The Athletic or any sports site. So little of what they can produce can possibly be that distinct -- or necessary -- from innumerable other sites. I subscribe to The New Yorker online for $8.99 a month, which also gives me access to their entire archive. I definitely get my money's worth.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

So little of what they can produce can possibly be that distinct -- or necessary -- from innumerable other sites.

It is. I am, however, a little pissed I didn't get my sub during a sale. If there's not a sale going on when my sub runs out, I'll probably wait until there is to renew.