RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
I can't believe it's 2012 and people are still bitching about the idea of paying for content.
I will agree, however, that paying more for the electronic version than you pay for electronic+print is screwy.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
Dispatch.com Now Limiting Free Access to Some Online Articles
[278 posts] [67 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
rob75
Grandview
Login to Send PM
Bear, I should have clarified - I agree with you that all of their website content can't be free to non-subscribers forever (otherwise why subscribe at all) - I'm OK with that approach (although announcing it more than two hours in advance would have been nice).
They really are asking for people to cancel, though, when they want me to pay for the electrons representing of a piece of paper (that I paid for) that is laying on my sidewalk. Especially I because I suspect the e-edition gets automatically generated from whatever software they use to put the paper together every night, so it isn't like this is extra effort for them... why would you alienate your best customers this way?
Posted 10 months ago # -
GCrites80s
5xNW
Login to Send PM
-
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM
Bear said:
I can't believe it's 2012 and people are still bitching about the idea of paying for content.I think there's a valid (and interesting) discussion to be had about the gray area in between "commoditized content" and "community service".
Some might argue that portions of what the Dispatch reports on fall into the latter category. Should everyone be required to pay to find out what's going on at City Hall or find out about the dangerous chemical fire explosion earlier this week?
I've noticed today that around 95% of the articles I've tried to pull up on Dispatch.com have been behind the paywall, including wire/syndicated stories from other sources that can be found online for free in other publications. I'm interested in knowing how they define "premium articles".
Posted 10 months ago # -
itinerantfoodie
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Looks like Crave isn't going to be free anymore, as well.
Posted 10 months ago # -
chiefleatherlips
Login to Send PM
The fact that they just did it without any warning or lead-up is the most annoying. Maybe I missed it in one of Marrison's self-serving lamentations about running a newspaper, but, the first I heard of it was when I encountered it. Maybe the Dispatch hired the old marketing guy from Netflix?
Posted 10 months ago # -
kryptonite
Login to Send PM
Walker said:
I seem to recall The Dispatch having a paywall in the early-to-mid 2000s, but they took it down.Will be interesting to see how their audience and customers respond to this.
They did limit their articles to subscribers only around then. However, you could take the end of the dispatch.com URL, mix it into the beginning of a similar url, such as 1460wbns.com, and be good to go.
Posted 10 months ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
I really think they could earn more with free consumer access and new/improved advertising packages. The wall makes almost all of their content un-shareable for social media. They're giving up way too many eyeballs here, and are setting themselves up to be irrelevant to people who don't want a paper-copy.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Graybeak
Hunky Town
Login to Send PM
joev said:
I really think they could earn more with free consumer access and new/improved advertising packages. The wall makes almost all of their content un-shareable for social media. They're giving up way too many eyeballs here, and are setting themselves up to be irrelevant to people who don't want a paper-copy.Well, if you recall the whole Ted Williams video debacle, they aren't exactly social media savvy/friendly.
One would have hoped they learned their lesson from that.Posted 10 months ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
I really think they could earn more with free consumer access and new/improved advertising packages. The wall makes almost all of their content un-shareable for social media. They're giving up way too many eyeballs here, and are setting themselves up to be irrelevant to people who don't want a paper-copy.
Graybeak said:
Well, if you recall the whole Ted Williams video debacle, they aren't exactly social media savvy/friendly.
One would have hoped they learned their lesson from that.Off topic - but remind me again how that was a debacle?
Posted 10 months ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Perhaps debacle is a bit strong, but it certainly didn't make the Dispatch look good.
Sure didn't.
Wonder if it's just a matter of attitude / outlook?
As in the Dispatch seems to think it should be paid for content because the content is valuable; any money they make from advertising is incidental.
Where other media outlets make good content, but they want you to share it freely because it's bait for advertising.
Posted 10 months ago # -
local champion
Login to Send PM
Bear said:
I can't believe it's 2012 and people are still bitching about the idea of paying for content.I will agree, however, that paying more for the electronic version than you pay for electronic+print is screwy.
Really? Why can't you bwlieve that? I personally can't believe in 2012 a local newspaper, such as the dispatch, would be trying to charge customers for content. Seems like that is a ploy straight out of 2003.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
local champion said:
Really? Why can't you bwlieve that? I personally can't believe in 2012 a local newspaper, such as the dispatch, would be trying to charge customers for content.Why?
They're in the business of producing content—content that has some value. What makes consumers think that they should be able to get it for free? It makes no sense to me that people think they should be able to get something for nothing.
If the content has no value to you, great, don't pay for it, and don't receive it—that's an answer I understand too. What I don't understand is complaining about the paywall, which amounts to a tacit concession that what's behind it has value coupled with an unwillingness to pay in proportion to that value.
Posted 10 months ago # -
local champion
Login to Send PM
Bear said:
Why?They're in the business of producing content—content that has some value. What makes consumers think that they should be able to get it for free? It makes no sense to me that people think they should be able to get something for nothing.
If the content has no value to you, great, don't pay for it, and don't receive it—that's an answer I understand too. What I don't understand is complaining about the paywall, which amounts to a tacit concession that what's behind it has value coupled with an unwillingness to pay in proportion to that value.
Of course they feel they should be entitled to compensation, but due to the changing world and business models, they won't get that compensation. Look at how much MSFT has adjusted the price of the new Windows 8. Look at how much the used video game market has flourished and publishers are trying to stop that because they want 70.00 for their crappy video game. When these companies overcharge for services, no one will pay. Consumers are not paying for content anymore, they just are not willing to do it. When you can get everything for free, why pay? Honestly, in 50 years do you see people paying for their operating system on their computers? Sounds to me like The Dispatch is trying to fight a losing battle. If they wanted some value for their content they wuold drop the price to something ridiculously low, say $5 a month, because other than that people will not pay. Its 2012, smarten up, content is not king.
Posted 10 months ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.