Fu(k Newsday

[sr71blackbird]

LINK (http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site)

Doucehbag Newsday went and made it so you would have to pay to read articles on their website.

You know what happened? After three months of this experiment, do you know how many online subscriptions they netted with this strategy?


35


Real fucking smart! Good for them, they learn what everyone who tries to make people pay for online news learns:


No one wants to pay!

[Snoogans]

LINK (http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site)

Doucehbag Newsday went and made it so you would have to pay to read articles on their website.

You know what happened? After three months of this experiment, do you know how many online subscriptions they netted with this strategy?


35


Real fucking smart! Good for them, they learn what everyone who tries to make people pay for online news learns:


No one wants to pay!

its cause no one wants to pay that they cant afford to keep putting out news without charging.

Stop being cheap and pay the 1 dollar for the fuckin paper

[keithy_19]

its cause no one wants to pay that they cant afford to keep putting out news without charging.

Stop being cheap and pay the 1 dollar for the fuckin paper

I enjoy the feel of a newspaper. I'll gladly pay the price.

[TooLowBrow]

I enjoy the feel of a newspaper. I'll gladly pay the price.

ill pay 50 cents a day for a paper, but if they wanted 200 bucks for a years free papers, i wouldnt do it

[keithy_19]

ill pay 50 cents a day for a paper, but if they wanted 200 bucks for a years free papers, i wouldnt do it

I agree with that. I wouldn't buy Newsday anyway.

[Snoogans]

ill pay 50 cents a day for a paper, but if they wanted 200 bucks for a years free papers, i wouldnt do it

50 cents a day plus a dollar for sundays is like 200 bucks

[TooLowBrow]

50 cents a day plus a dollar for sundays is like 200 bucks

i know, but theres something about giving them the whole thing at once that i dont like

[SatCam]

Fu(k Newsday

I'm sensing a pattern here

http://ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11475

http://ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48960

[sr71blackbird]

The thread is not about the newspaper. Its about the website charging per view of an article. Doesn't anyone read before they comment?

[hanso]

You can't link to stories from media like these after awhile.
If you want it seen in the long run its best to c&p.

[Snoogans]

The thread is not about the newspaper. Its about the website charging per view of an article. Doesn't anyone read before they comment?

you are so retarded. Newsday makes a paper. when they sold alot of papers, they could afford to put stuff online for free. Now that all these cheap, unappreciative bastards like yourself refuse to BUY THE NEWSPAPER, they have to charge online in order to be able to pay the people who bring you the news online.

Therefore if you bought more newspapers, they could afford to go back to giving shit online for free.

Maybe you should think with logic before you open your mouth.

[sr71blackbird]

Sean, the point is, I can get my news from so many places for free, so why would I pay a subscription fee to view an article? Obviously I am not alone, considering the amount of people who signed up for the subscription! Plus, the newsday site is horrendous to begin with. Even if you paid for the subscription, you still get the ads, so the idea that paying a subscription fee plus being bombarded with ads does not appeal to anyone, me included. They need to find a way to have an online presence and still make money. I know a lot of people who buy an actual paper and who also get breaking news online.

[Snoogans]

Sean, the point is, I can get my news from so many places for free, so why would I pay a subscription fee to view an article? Obviously I am not alone, considering the amount of people who signed up for the subscription! Plus, the newsday site is horrendous to begin with. Even if you paid for the subscription, you still get the ads, so the idea that paying a subscription fee plus being bombarded with ads does not appeal to anyone, me included. They need to find a way to have an online presence and still make money. I know a lot of people who buy an actual paper and who also get breaking news online.

the point is it would be free if people like you bought papers. You dont, so they cant afford to give it free

and they do have that, its callin selling newspapers. thats what makes the money to keep it online

[Snoogans]

see SR your biggest problem is lack of logic. they didnt start charging for online shit cause they wanted to be greedy or freeze people out. they were happy to give it away free online when they were selling enough papers to sustain the company.

They did this cause they NEED to. Because people like you decided to stop buyying papers and jsut get all your news online for free. You felt rather than pay someone for the services they give you, you would try to steal them. Now newsday can't afford to keep giving that stuff away free cause they wont be able to pay the reporters. So they figured a way to make more money, charge for stuff online. They have no choice because people like you dont buy papers. they go hand in hand, they arent seperate issues.

if you want shit to go back to being free online, the only way to do that is buy more papers so they have enough money to put things online for free.

And without people buying the paper, those ads you are "bombarded" with are the only way besides subscription that they can make money.

The reason big things like CNN and fox and all them can keep stuff online free is that they make enough money from other things, TV especially. They can afford it. Newsday can't because they are a real news agency that people no longer support

[Bob Impact]

see SR your biggest problem is lack of logic. they didnt start charging for online shit cause they wanted to be greedy or freeze people out. they were happy to give it away free online when they were selling enough papers to sustain the company.

They did this cause they NEED to. Because people like you decided to stop buyying papers and jsut get all your news online for free. You felt rather than pay someone for the services they give you, you would try to steal them. Now newsday can't afford to keep giving that stuff away free cause they wont be able to pay the reporters. So they figured a way to make more money, charge for stuff online. They have no choice because people like you dont buy papers. they go hand in hand, they arent seperate issues.

if you want shit to go back to being free online, the only way to do that is buy more papers so they have enough money to put things online for free.

And without people buying the paper, those ads you are "bombarded" with are the only way besides subscription that they can make money.

The reason big things like CNN and fox and all them can keep stuff online free is that they make enough money from other things, TV especially. They can afford it. Newsday can't because they are a real news agency that people no longer support

I agree with 90% of your point but I don't blame people who don't want to pay as if their scumbags, it's a shift in the marketplace... newspapers have their place with some but for most they're unnecessary. Also, as a correction, you mention fox in the "keeping stuff online for free" section, News Corp has already announced and started moving towards erecting pay wall on some of their content... Fox is unaffected so far but I would imagine if they're successful with some smaller sites they'll move on to Foxnews.com

[Snoogans]

I agree with 90% of your point but I don't blame people who don't want to pay as if their scumbags, it's a shift in the marketplace... newspapers have their place with some but for most they're unnecessary. Also, as a correction, you mention fox in the "keeping stuff online for free" section, News Corp has already announced and started moving towards erecting pay wall on some of their content... Fox is unaffected so far but I would imagine if they're successful with some smaller sites they'll move on to Foxnews.com

i dont know i dont go to them. but i noticed most of what i hear starting to charge are the smaller or paper and online only companies, not the major ones with tv and other revenue

[Bob Impact]

i dont know i dont go to them. but i noticed most of what i hear starting to charge are the smaller or paper and online only companies, not the major ones with tv and other revenue

Yeah, IIRC that's Newscorps planned model, starting with smaller sources then moving on up.

[mikeyboy]

What does Snoogans feel more strongly about -- Newsday or free range meat?

[Bob Impact]

What does Snoogans feel more strongly about -- Newsday or free range meat?

Whatever you do, don't mention free range reporters.

[mikeyboy]

Whatever you do, don't mention free range reporters.

Dude, they have longer microphone cords so they can move around more and they are happier.

[A.J.]

What does Snoogans feel more strongly about -- Newsday or free range meat?

Everton.

[sr71blackbird]

Well, radio is free because of advertizing. This site is free for us because of advertizing too.

[Serpico1103]

Well, radio is free because of advertizing. This site is free for us because of advertizing too.

Radio is free, but look at how shitty their programming is. You get what you pay for.
Media corps. need to find better ways to generate revenue either from advertising or subscriptions.

[Snoogans]

Everton.

GODDAMN RIGHT

glad someone here understands me

FUCK LIVERPOOL

[Snoogans]

Dude, they have longer microphone cords so they can move around more and they are happier.

how old are you bro?


Wireless mics now. no cords. true freedom