Another effort by newspapers to charge for on-line editions begins

[Argus]

So starting Monday the Globe and Mail's on-line edition becomes pay only. You'll need to subscribe, at $16.95 a month, to read it. The Ottawa Citizen has already started. Their monthly fee is $9.95. The Globe has been comparing itself to the New York Times, which does this succesfully, but I don't think they have the same amount (or level) of unique material for readers. Much of what the Citizen and Globe put on their web sites is simply from various wire services, and so avilable elsewhere. Though if the Citizen is doing it I suppose the other Postmedia papers are now doing it as well. Still, most of the wire service stuff isn't even Canadian, so it'll still be available elsewhere. I wonder how long this experiment will last, and what the readership numbers will be.

[Guest]

The Independent in the UK does something similar, charging for the reading of more than 20 articles/month.

The National Post has stopped delivery to any but the largest population centres. I used to get it to my door, but not any more. The biggest city I've come across where they won't deliver it (to homes or stores) is Grande Prairie. Cheap bastards.

I manage to get my fix in spurts though, as they sell it in Edmonton, and I have most issues saved and get them weekly.

Sorry for the rant. I guess my point is that it won't be long before it's electronic only, just like Newsweek.

Edited October 20, 2012 by bcsapper

[Shady]

The NYT doesn't do it all that successfully. It's one of the reasons they're in such bad financial shape. The only paper that seems to be doing well in the transition to online content subscriptions is The Wall Street Journal.

[Topaz]

One way around this is go to another paper website or how about your local radio station or TV station. One can get the news anywhere now and not have to pay.

[Guest]

Strangely enough, I don't read the newspapers for the news, except on very big news days. I get my news from the internet. I read papers for the editorial commentary and other articles. And the Sudoku, of course.

Edited October 20, 2012 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

People won't pay. I know I won't and I follow the news closely. You can get tons of news from journalists on Twitter, but more importantly social media also allows everyone to share the open and free links. In fact, those are the links that get sent around. Newspapers need to find a way to generate advertising revenue to pay for their operations and give the stories to the readers for free. Magazines, newspapers, and even cable stations have become greedy. They found a business model where they could charge advertisers AND the users. Television originally had advertising because the end user didn't pay for it like we do now. Now they charge the advertisers AND the end user. Pick one. If you're going to be showing me ads, then I shouldn't be paying for your site, magazine, newspaper, television station, etc. The advertisers are paying for it. If you're going to be ad free, then I have no problem paying to cover your costs. What I do have a problem with is double dipping.

[Bonam]

The NYT doesn't do it all that successfully. It's one of the reasons they're in such bad financial shape. The only paper that seems to be doing well in the transition to online content subscriptions is The Wall Street Journal.

Indeed. The WSJ is filled with unique and inciteful articles that are hard to find in similar detail elsewhere.