Nov 2012 comments about paying for news content

November 2012 ToledoTalk.com thread titled The Blade begins All Access subscription for online content

My comments from that thread:

1. - Excerpts from the Facebook comments posted at the Blade article about charging for digital access:

• "I will survive and just get my news from someplace else like television ..."
• "Time to get used to the local TV web sites for my local news."
• "What a joke! Charge for access to online content? Plenty of other places to get the news."

Everyone probably has a different definition of "news," but how much news can be found on local TV news websites? How much local news can you get by watching a local TV news station?

I assume that some people who produce a product would like to be paid, so I don't see the problem with them charging a fee for their product. And if the product sucks, then a consumer can stop paying for it.

It's rare, probably not even once a month, that I watch a local TV news program. Unless it's a major event, I think TV is the worst source for acquiring news or information. Watching TV for news/info is too restrictive, and it requires too much time investment.

It has been a few years since I last held and read a printed newspaper, including the weeklies. With tablets, smartphones, apps, and better designed websites, I think the printed newspaper is pointless. So I would buy the Blade's $5.99 digital-only access plan.

---

"Only a fool would pay to read news on the Internet."

2. - Good analysis. Concise and poignant.

And only fools dine at restaurants because they could save a lot of money by buying the food at the store and preparing it at home. I can't believe able-bodied homeowners outsource their lawncare functions to a for-profit business. It must have something to do with choice.

The way the media landscape is rapidly changing in the United States, soon it will be only fools who pay to read news on printed paper, assuming the print option even exists. Some small orgs or clubs that provided its paying members with a printed newsletter have switched to digital-only. It's the trend.

The newspaper industry has spent the last 10 to 15 years trying to adapt to the technological changes that have caused us to consume information in new ways. It may take several more years of innovation before the newspaper industry finds a sustainable model. They have to try new things and maybe fail at times in order to get to the solution quicker.

It's expected that in two or three years, most of the Web access in the U.S. (outside of work) will be done on smartphones and tablets and not on desktop/laptop computers.

A few of my recently collected media links :

November 2012 - Newspapers report ad revenue loss for 25th quarter in a row

November 2012 - Mobile-first and the future of media

October 2012 - Digital first isn’t an option for media — it’s the only way forward

October 2012 - Future of mobile news

October 2012 - More Tablet Owners Read News than Use Social Networking Sites

October 2012 - Trends show online ad revenue will overtake print this year

October 2012 - By year’s end, tablet users in the United States alone are expected to exceed 70 million, up from 13 million just two years ago.

August 2012 discussion How will readers consume long-form journalism five years from now?

July 2012 - Which mobile devices are owners using most frequently for news?

July 2012 - The iPad becomes the evening newspaper

July 2012 - Mobile Is Where The Growth Is