Newsday to Charge $5 per Week for Web Access

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Raise your hand if you think Newsday’s plan to charge $5 a week for web access is a good idea. At least the economy is doing really well right now and people can afford to pay…wait…nevermind.

Newsday plans to start charging $5 a week for access to its Web site in a move that could generate more revenue but risks driving away readers. The new fees will begin next Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
Well I don't know what else this industry is supposed to do but this will fail I'm afraid.
 
Will there be ads in the pay sections?

Its sad that we are getting to the point where news can't be read for free, then again, the news is only about the world ending most of the time
 
I like reading hard copy news because I can take it anywhere at my leisure. If Newsday would like to have me pay for data News then they should get together with the distributes of the pipeline and cut me some slack on the price of the downloads at the time of my impulse to read. The term "reading the fine print" comes to mind here. I need reading glasses most of the time as it is. If I'm at home and I need to analyze the world, I'd prefer a telecast.
 
$5 a week? Shit might as well get a real newspaper delivered to me for that price.
 
$5 a week for news? Gee where else would I possibly get news from? Yeah that's going to go over really well.

Goodbye Newsday.
 
Sure, its a great idea - If they want to see their website traffic drop to less visits than the average Geocities page.
 
Hmmm, pay $5 per week for the same news i can get for free on every single other news website out there.
 
sfsuphysics said:
$5 a week? Shit might as well get a real newspaper delivered to me for that price.
Click to expand...

that is kind of the point, they are losing the money on print vs free online newssites, so figure why not charge for the online version as you would a hard copy

i can see most news sites going this way, as their hardcopy sales drop, they will charge for online access to news.
 
With this move, they're clearly doomed. If their advertising model can't find a way to pay for web content, and they can't convince people of the value of paper news [50% advertising], then... they're done. Few people will pay for this when they can pay for NYT, WSJ, etc.
 
k1pp3r said:
Will there be ads in the pay sections?

Its sad that we are getting to the point where news can't be read for free, then again, the news is only about the world ending most of the time
Click to expand...

Reminds me of IGN. They added ad after ad after ad, it got insane trying to do anything there with ads on the top of the page, at the side of the page, before any video, after any video, and then the ones that come floating over from the side of the page and get right in the way of reading text.

So, I bought a subscription. The ads went away. Then, they slowly came back. They added one after another, and before you knew it you were paying and had practically all the same old ads now showing again. At first they let you go in and toggle them off (but had a message urging you to leave them on because they brought needed revenue), but then even that became ineffective. You'd have them turned off there yet still get them.
 
Charging for news on the web will only guarantee one thing, A reduction of hit by about 99%. Why the hell would you pay for news online when it is free everywhere?
 
Ualdayan said:
Reminds me of IGN. They added ad after ad after ad, it got insane trying to do anything there with ads on the top of the page, at the side of the page, before any video, after any video, and then the ones that come floating over from the side of the page and get right in the way of reading text.
Click to expand...


Tell me about it, at shacknews i can't even click the background if i want to select the window to scroll down, if a freakin link to an ad. Just insane i have started avoiding shacknews whenever it is linked somewhere
 
Fuck. I was just at a site looking through a photo gallery. A photo gallery, and after the second picture there was an ad. The next picture will display in 15 seconds...

Back.
 
Your headline is a little wrong. If your an optimum online subscriber , on cablevisions network , or a newsday subscriber its free.

PS google gets its news from sites like newsday so this means any long island news will not be in google anymore.

Also when the ap stops giving stories out for free google will have a hard time getting news.
 
I think you are all wrong. I get Newsday delivered each day and it's the same price either way. The article says if you are already getting it delivered, the online version is free so I don't see how they would lose readers, except those who don't pay for Newsday in either form. Those who don't subscribe at all will still be able to get classifieds, the home page and school closings etc.
I don't agree that saying all news will be found at ANY other website. Google etc, don't usually cover the in depth local stuff that Newsday would have in their newspaper, which mostly covers Long Island. It does cover NYC but not as comprehensive as say The Times or (Gasp!) the Post.
Demographically, most Newsday readers are older adults who read the paper with their breakfast and aren't apt to turn on their pc in the morning to get their fix, it's still easier and quicker to get the paper off the doorstep in the morning. ;)
 
News is the LAST thing I will ever consider paying for.
 
Ualdayan said:
Reminds me of IGN. They added ad after ad after ad, it got insane trying to do anything there with ads on the top of the page, at the side of the page, before any video, after any video, and then the ones that come floating over from the side of the page and get right in the way of reading text.

So, I bought a subscription. The ads went away. Then, they slowly came back. They added one after another, and before you knew it you were paying and had practically all the same old ads now showing again. At first they let you go in and toggle them off (but had a message urging you to leave them on because they brought needed revenue), but then even that became ineffective. You'd have them turned off there yet still get them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IGN's blatent abuse of ads shows that their greed whoring is more important than their readers having a nice experience on their site, which is why I never visit their site. Thank god for firefox and the multitude of plugins because I really dont have issues with ads, they are all disabled. Don't get me wrong, I understand business and I understand that money needs to be made but a line should be drawn somewhere and keep the shit to a limit and not jammed down your throat every second..
 
Ualdayan said:
Reminds me of IGN. They added ad after ad after ad, it got insane trying to do anything there with ads on the top of the page, at the side of the page, before any video, after any video, and then the ones that come floating over from the side of the page and get right in the way of reading text.

So, I bought a subscription. The ads went away. Then, they slowly came back. They added one after another, and before you knew it you were paying and had practically all the same old ads now showing again. At first they let you go in and toggle them off (but had a message urging you to leave them on because they brought needed revenue), but then even that became ineffective. You'd have them turned off there yet still get them.
Click to expand...

Techx said:
Yeah, IGN's blatent abuse of ads shows that their greed whoring is more important than their readers having a nice experience on their site, which is why I never visit their site. Thank god for firefox and the multitude of plugins because I really dont have issues with ads, they are all disabled. Don't get me wrong, I understand business and I understand that money needs to be made but a line should be drawn somewhere and keep the shit to a limit and not jammed down your throat every second..
Click to expand...

Sounds like something IGN would do. What did you expect from lowlife gold spammers in MMORPGs?
 
$20+ a month... it better read the news to me. wait a minute, im pretty sure you can get msnbc inside windows media center and it does the same thing. hell i wouldnt be surprised if you can get it right to your phone now.
 
it will not fail if they have the readership and are respected but then again it is newsweek.

I pay 7/ week for Financial Times and about 2.50/week for the Wall Street Journal. I get the print and online versions of both.
 
The only online news model that will work will be something that charges you a very small amount per article that you read. Get the blurbs for free but pay a dime to read the rest of the article. Then the provider bills you once a month for all the stuff you read.
 
majortom1981 said:
Also when the ap stops giving stories out for free google will have a hard time getting news.
Click to expand...

Nah. Google will just have their own competing version of a newswire out by then. The first mistake is thinking Google hasn't already thought about a service they can compete with to fill in the gap with any existing service that goes pay.
 
k1pp3r said:
Tell me about it, at shacknews i can't even click the background if i want to select the window to scroll down, if a freakin link to an ad. Just insane i have started avoiding shacknews whenever it is linked somewhere
Click to expand...

Really? I can't imagine shack like that. Thank goodness for adblock!
 
do you not pay for newspapers?
do you not pay for cable tv?
do you not pay your ISP for internet access

you already pay for news, i dont see why this seems like such a shock to everyone.
 
MrGuvernment said:
do you not pay for newspapers?
do you not pay for cable tv?
do you not pay your ISP for internet access

you already pay for news, i dont see why this seems like such a shock to everyone.
Click to expand...

1. no, i get my news from the free local ad-supported newspapers. they are weekly editions, any daily news comes from local tv.

2. cable tv is free in bars, jail, hair salons... and most people dont pay for tv anyway. especially with HD broadcasts up and running now, people are flocking away from paid tv because they get 10+ channels as it is.

3. free internet is everywhere. you can still get dialup for free with ads too.

if newsday provided a service that is CLEARLY superior to free alternatives then it wouldnt be an issue. problem is, they dont bring anything to the table that any other news source does, and they still have ads. charging $5 a week would be like paying the state $1 every time you get in your car. people will simply refuse to pay and still find a way to drive.
 
every time i go to yahoo or msn or whatever their homepages bombard me with news. theres also some little toolbar at the top of my firefox that says "latest headlines" and i assume goes to a bunch of news articles. i dont think its odd that they want to charge for their services (although i do think $5 is too high,) i think its odd that they think they can do it when theres such a plethora of freely accessed news all across the rest of the internet.
 
krupted said:
1. no, i get my news from the free local ad-supported newspapers. they are weekly editions, any daily news comes from local tv.

2. cable tv is free in bars, jail, hair salons... and most people dont pay for tv anyway. especially with HD broadcasts up and running now, people are flocking away from paid tv because they get 10+ channels as it is.

3. free internet is everywhere. you can still get dialup for free with ads too.

if newsday provided a service that is CLEARLY superior to free alternatives then it wouldnt be an issue. problem is, they dont bring anything to the table that any other news source does, and they still have ads. charging $5 a week would be like paying the state $1 every time you get in your car. people will simply refuse to pay and still find a way to drive.
Click to expand...

1. Always an option for many, but others like daily news in their hands

2. it isnt free, someone paid for it, maybe not you, but you go into said bar, buy a drink or food and agan, your paying for something to get something.

3. free dial up is great, but most people in developed area have broadband because dial up is too slow for most of todays pages.

I know there are ways to get your news for free, but i would say most people in some form or another , pay for their news.

If you already get your news for free, then this topic is a non issue for you, if you do pay for anything above i mentioned, then i think a big deal is being made out of nothing.

I do not buy newspapers, but how much does one go for these days, is it $1 for a news paper?

$5 in the end could seem like alot, since they no longer need to print, delivery the paper, they put it on a website, pay for the bandwidth and they are done with it
 
Who gives a shit. It is there own damn fault for putting crappy ads on their websites that don't make any money. Yes, I pay for internet and TV. But, I sure as shit will not pay more to access some news site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top