QOTD: Would You Pay For Content Online?
Is the content you read online worth paying for?
Over the last year, newspapers have seen a steady decline in print sales, with more readers logging online to get their daily dose of current affairs. Whether or not it signifies the death knell of the newspaper and magazine business, the industry is faced with a very big problem: how do you make online revenue match the money made from print sales?
One solution that nobody seems to be a fan of (that is, nobody but newspapers) is introducing subscriptions to the sites. Similar to the way you subscribe to a certain newspaper in the real world, you'd subscribe to them online. Instead of having the newspaper delivered to your door every morning, you'd log online and view the news from the comfort of your own home or office.
While tons of people are opposed to the idea of paying a subscription for news on the internet, there's a significant amount who are of the opinion that if the content is of a good quality, then why shouldn't we pay for it?
Today's question of the day is would you consider paying for the online content that you consume each day? If so, how would the content have to be different for you to feel that it's worth paying for it?
- QOTD ,
- Tomshardware ,
- paid ,
- content
- Bing Cuts Itself a 10% Slice of the Search Pie
- Unreal Tournament Turns 10; Get Game for $2
- Super Talent 2 TB SSDs Coming Next Month
- MMO Developers Sued for Patent Infringement
- IE8 = Longer Battery Life on Laptops?
- Video: Lenovo SimpleTap Touch for Thinkpads
- Windows 7 Not Afraid of Netbooks or Macs
- Lenovo's Super Bright Outdoor X200 LCD
- iPhone 3.1 Jailbroken for Older iPods and iPhones
- Pirate Bay Buyer Finds New Stock Exchange
- Star Wars: Jedi Knight Collection Hits Steam
- Nvidia: DirectX 11 Won't Define GPU Sales
- Students Can Get Windows 7 Pro for $19
- Zune HD Review: Finally, an iPod Competitor?
- Lenovo's Atom-powered C100 is Cheap, Cheerful
- Super Fast OCZ Z-Drive SSD Shipping
- xpPhone: The Smartphone That Runs Windows XP
- Five U.S. Attorneys General Object to Google Deal
People in the UK pay for the rest of world to look at www.bbc.co.uk
We already pay for it.
Seconded
Agree on that. BBC is very good though. Happy to be paying for it.
I also hate the idea of subscribing to see the news. I like being able to references news articles without friends having to log into them, or subscribe to the same news site. It'll also mean less sources on one piece of news.
But, they should definitely offer more specialist things (like features, maybe images?, etc) for a medium cost. And keep the basic content free.
And, no previews, please. I hate "preview" pages.
I hope Toms isn't gonna start charging to visit! JK! It is just the pure convenience of being able to hit a few buttons from my desktop or phone and know whats going on anywhere in the world. If you are an Über liberal you don't buy papers so you'll have more trees to hug. The internet is the greatest thing ever invented.
I really dislike the idea of paying for online content but I would do it. Good quality content that you like is hard to find and takes a lot of effort to produce whether it's a one man one issue blog or an entire metro newspaper. What's fair to me is $2/month for sites I like and $5/month for content I think is extremely valuable.
no because you newer know the quality of content before you pay
Well as far as i've seen the best part about online content is its community (forums etc), by placing a restriction such as subscribing, the community is reduced as well as the experience from it.
Also I feel the internet is a community of sharing info, call me old fashioned or whatnot. BBC is not the only website out there. And imo there are better ones around for "free". In the same way i'd seek out a "free" counterpart of any site.
arguable... to be honest... I would imagine that I would pay something... Although having worked for a company publishing some stuff online and charging subscription fees I know how messy the process is... But even if a proper process would be in place I still somehow cannot justify why would I have to pay for the content? If someone is happy to do it now for free - why would I have to pay for it in the future? If a company is offering "content" for free and now changes their mind about it being free - surely the problem is not with the content being free or the quality of it - it's their "will" to charge for it - and I reckon that is not right. Knowledge should be free and if you really think about it - it's the free stuff that has been driving the web for ages. I mean imagine how long ago google would die if they started to charge for using google.com? Or, let's look at this site - would anyone pay for the news section? Some articles are good - but then again you cannot easily find what you are looking for, and there are no supplements to them - if for example someone notices an obvious problem with the article - saying "it would be good if we could see a clock-to-clock comparison of Athlon2 quad core and Phenom 2" - Toms does nothing to fix it... So knowing "how this site" works... I would never pay for its content. Now let's look at some other site - someone tells me - there is a "great IT site with lots of proper stuff on it" - well - how do I know? "They are going to let you try it for free for 30 days / 3 months / 1 year" - well - I might give it a go... but even 1 year free is not justifying my will to pay for it - what if I won't find anything interesting over a year / what if their quality drops? What if they start writing about AppleCrap? Well - I say no... It's my choice to read this that or the other, and having to pay for it? No thank you - the web is commercialized enough at the moment... When a hobby - "knowledgeable guy knowing his stuff and dedicated to it" - decides to write an article it is his "open mindness" that creates a good content on the web... The moment you pay this guy - he might change his tactics and write stuff because he will make some money - therefore he will not care about what he writes eventually. I reckon FREE content is GOOD content... PAID content is not ALWAYS good. (Note: This is in context of IT news website)... So... I reckon I would not pay for that kind of stuff. Luckily the competition is huge and if for example THG would start charging people - most of us would walk away. We are already fed up with THG's attitude to us (or shall I say "US" ?)... So if you are thinking about it guys - good luck to you.
Restricting online content would effectively dumb down the world.
Furthermore people would get biased views as they would only subscribe to 1 or 2 papers and not get a broad overview from all the opinions.
It would be a massive step backwards for the human race - knowledge should be free and not reserved for the rich.