It’s not the price — it’s the wall that hurts
Scott Rosenberg clarifies an earlier post and, in the process, makes an important point about why so many are wary of The Wall:
“When we talk about “charging for articles” we sometimes mix up the impact of charging itself and the impact of the steps taken to make sure people pay. …
“The problem is that the steps publishers take to maximize revenue end up minimizing the value and utility of their Web pages. Building a “pay wall” typically means that only a paying subscriber can access the page — that’s why it’s a wall. So others can’t link directly to it, and the article is unlikely to serve as the starting point for a wider conversation beyond the now-narrowed pool of subscribers.
“In other words, when you put up a pay wall around a website you are asking people to pay more for access to material that you are simultaneously devaluing by cordoning it off from the rest of the Web.”
Tim Windsor | May 30, 2009 | 11:23 a.m.
Tags: Business Models, paid content
But if the news industry doesn’t charge for online content, they will not be able to make revenue. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everything is free, but it is not. You charge people for a print edition of a newspaper so why can you not charge for the online news. Would I love to have free news, yes of course who wouldn’t. But I understand that the paper is not making a profit, other than the minimal revenue from advertisements.
hey you both have great points and i also agree that news papers put a price on there material i dont have any problem. and yes it is the fact that in order to get the news you have to go around a pay wall which cuts it from people and everyone needs news now there are actually always around walls like if you cant pay for it yourself split cost with friends and share the account