Washington Post, Buffett-owned papers putting up paywalls?

[wicked]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/washington-post-reportedly-considering-adding-a-paywall-in-2013/2012/12/06/0630b2f4-3ff4-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html

 

[Norrin Radd]

Congratulations to the Post's competitors. They're about to receive a nice boost in readership.

 

[podunk press]

I use Twitter. Twitter is free. Gives me the news.

Don't need traditional Web sites.

About 15 years too late on this, Washington Post. Sorry.

 

[Norrin Radd]

I use Twitter. Twitter is free. Gives me the news.

Don't need traditional Web sites.

About 15 years too late on this, Washington Post. Sorry.

Do you even realize how much news you're missing by not taking advantage of the in-depth insight that newspapers provide?

 

[baddecision]

No, Norrin. Like many people, podunk does not realize this. That is the problem our managers fail to grasp. News has lost its value. It's free as a tweet and just as deep. That's all people can be bothered to absorb any longer.

 

[LongTimeListener]

People said it would never work for the NYT either -- I was a doubter, I admit -- but they have sold about 600,000 subscriptions. Still haven't figured out the advertising model, but they're making some serious inroads toward a new business model. So it isn't out of the question for the Post to be able to do it.

I wonder if anyone is ever going to try it full-bore, i.e. eliminating the work-arounds and protecting its copyright across every message board on the Internet (or as many as they can find). Whole thing is somewhat stuck in neutral until the industry takes this step.

 

[podunk press]

I work at a newspaper, and I've gone straight to Twitter ever since paywalls started going up around here.

I don't miss the newspaper Web sites.

Most of my favorite writers no longer work for newspapers. I get my in-depth stuff from Yahoo, ESPN.com, Grantland, etc.

Look, I wish it wasn't that way. But it's the reality of the situation.

 

[slc10]

Won't have worry about short memory spans in about 13 days if the Mayan's and the theorists are correct.

 

[da man]

People said it would never work for the NYT either -- I was a doubter, I admit -- but they have sold about 600,000 subscriptions. Still haven't figured out the advertising model, but they're making some serious inroads toward a new business model. So it isn't out of the question for the Post to be able to do it.

I wonder if anyone is ever going to try it full-bore, i.e. eliminating the work-arounds and protecting its copyright across every message board on the Internet (or as many as they can find). Whole thing is somewhat stuck in neutral until the industry takes this step.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[britwrit]

The all-you-can-eat free buffet model hasn't exactly worked, so what do Buffett and co. have to lose? If someone isn't going to pay for the news, why bother trying to draw them in with your website?

 

[Alma]

I work at a newspaper, and I've gone straight to Twitter ever since paywalls started going up around here.

I don't miss the newspaper Web sites.

Most of my favorite writers no longer work for newspapers. I get my in-depth stuff from Yahoo, ESPN.com, Grantland, etc.

Look, I wish it wasn't that way. But it's the reality of the situation.

You pay for the ESPN and Grantland writers, I would guess. You pay quite a bit for them, since they're subsidized by your cable fees.

 

[Mark2010]

I have never paid a dime for a website subscription. Why? I can get the same stuff they are offering in about 100 other places for free.

I have never bought anything on a web ad, either. So I have no idea how these people make any money.

I suppose if it worked, everyone would be doing it.