Why are online newspapers so freaking expensive?

[Hamlet]

I've been wondering how many other people realize that you can reset this counter on your internet browser by deleting the cookies.

You can get all the NYT articles you want for free, because when you hit the 10/month limit you can just delete your cookies (or open a different browser app) and start over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye I was making do on the NYT's free 20 articles a month but they dropped it to 10. About the time they did that (May?), I became a college student again. The student rate is $7.50 per month after the first month for 99 cents. I consider $7.50 to be a fair price so I signed up. I think the regular subscription price is double the student price and I don't see myself paying that. Amazon convinced me to sign up for Amazon Prime because students get 6 months free and then a reduced rate. Seems like it's to get addicted to Amazon Prime.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem That's why I buy our local paper (the Dayton Daily News). I want a bunch of busybodies investigating corruption in city hall, letting me know about big interests buying zoning changes, the new red light cameras and the controversies surrounding them, etc. It's well worth it to me to buy the paper just to support this staff of reporters.

Same here, and that's also partly why I subscribe to the local paper. They also do a good job of reporting the "good news" of local goings-on, such as the "Weekender" section detailing local stuff to do that is either free or low cost within about a 50-mile radius.

[ls99]

Once or twice a week I buy the Pittsburgh paper, to read recent history.

If I want news, just scan a few websites online.

[MichaelB]

+1 @ samclem

We subscribe and pay for a number of newspapers and magazines. Online papers are better for us, physical delivery is problematic because of frequent absences when we are on the road. We choose those sources that get the bulk of their revenue from the subscription price and not advertising.

In the past we lived in a country where the press is not free (and I'm not talking about money). People underestimate the benefits of an effective press. It is well worth paying for, and it is also indispensable to our way of life.

[soupcxan]

I am not trying to get something for nothing. Quality reporting takes time and money, but it is being pushed out of the market by the blogosphere and "reporting" that seems more interested in Tom Cruise's divorce than anything substantive. I find TV news, both local and cable, to be of generally low quality. I can read CNN and USAToday for free online but I don't find either of them particularly thought-provoking. CNN is relying more on video clips (which I hate) and self-reported stories (which are worthless). USAToday is blandly written; it is like sliced white bread in a world of handmade wheat rolls. I fear that the death of local newspapers' investigative reporting will remove one of the few remaining checks and balances on local government.

I listen to NPR a lot and despite their bias I find them to be very informative. Even though they are "free" I contribute to them voluntairly because they provide a useful service at a fair price. I would like to support the NYT and WSJ as well because they are the best of a dying breed. But why, why do they think it makes sense to the customer to charge LESS for a daily delivered dead-tree edition plus online content, versus just selling me the online content? Deleting the NYT cookie every 10 articles is a pain, and not even an option for the WSJ.

Ethical question: is it more wrong to (a) sign up using a student discount and give the papers ~50% of the $$$ they're asking for, or (b) to do nothing, continue using their websites for the free articles, and give them no $$$ at all.

[MooreBonds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan But why, why do they think it makes sense to the customer to charge LESS for a daily delivered dead-tree edition plus online content, versus just selling me the online content?

Because - they charge all advertisers $.x per circulated copy of dead-tree edition. The amount they charge advertisers for on-line page views is MUCH lower, and the number of page views their typical on-line viewer views is typically MUCH lower, resulting in less advertising revenue per on-line subscriber compared to the dead-tree recipient.

If each on-line subscriber, on average, viewed enough page hits to bring in more revenue per subscriber compared to the dead-tree version, then they would have a definite economic incentive to have a lower subscription price compared to the dead-tree edition.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan ...(snip)... Deleting the NYT cookie every 10 articles is a pain, and not even an option for the WSJ. Ethical question: is it more wrong to (a) sign up using a student discount and give the papers ~50% of the $$$ they're asking for, or (b) to do nothing, continue using their websites for the free articles, and give them no $$$ at all.

I'd vote for (a) because if you asked their management they have to be stupid to choose (b).

I actually sent the NYT email a long time ago requesting some alternative. But they didn't listen to me . So now I feel free to exploit them . Just kidding.

[MichaelB]

Here is one explanation for bland newspaper articles New reporter? Call him Al, for algorithm - Yahoo! News Canada

Quote:

The new reporter on the US media scene takes no coffee breaks, churns out articles at lightning speed, and has no pension plan. That's because the reporter is not a person, but a computer algorithm, honed to translate raw data such as corporate earnings reports and previews or sports statistics into readable prose. Algorithms are producing a growing number of articles for newspapers and websites, such as this one produced by Narrative Science: "Wall Street is high on Wells Fargo, expecting it to report earnings that are up 15.7 percent from a year ago when it reports its second quarter earnings on Friday, July 13, 2012," said the article on Forbes.com. While computers cannot parse the subtleties of each story, they can take vast amounts of raw data and turn it into what passes for news, analysts say. "This can work for anything that is basic and formulaic," says Ken Doctor, an analyst with the media research firm Outsell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan Ethical question: is it more wrong to (a) sign up using a student discount and give the papers ~50% of the $$$ they're asking for, or (b) to do nothing, continue using their websites for the free articles, and give them no $$$ at all.

Option "B" seems to comply with the rules and does not appear unethical.

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan Ethical question: is it more wrong to (a) sign up using a student discount and give the papers ~50% of the $$$ they're asking for, or (b) to do nothing, continue using their websites for the free articles, and give them no $$$ at all.

Why would there be any ethical question about taking a student discount when you are a student and the paper offers a student discount? They control it by requiring an active school email address.

[soupcxan]

I have not been a student for several years but I still have a valid .edu address. Hence the moral question about using the student discount.

I understand why newspapers think they should charge less for printed+online than just online due to ad rates. But from the consumers' point of view it is asinine. I am getting a discount for the hassle of taking an unread newspaper off my lawn and dropping it, unread, in the recycle bin everyday That must be great for the environment.

[Bestwifeever]

Don't worry, all the printed newspapers will be gone in about ten years, and most of the online papers too.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupcxan I have not been a student for several years but I still have a valid .edu address. Hence the moral question about using the student discount. I understand why newspapers think they should charge less for printed+online than just online due to ad rates. But from the consumers' point of view it is asinine. I am getting a discount for the hassle of taking an unread newspaper off my lawn and dropping it, unread, in the recycle bin everyday That must be great for the environment.

Im just the opposite. They give me newspaper on driveway and free online access. I have never opened up the online newspaper, once. Then again I still use some stamps and pay most of my bills by checks. The dinosaurs didn't all die at once, it took a little time to get rid of them all

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan That is a very good point. If the journalism side dies off from lack of money, that only leaves the tv reporters as the community watchdogs.

And I don't think the TV reporters do a very good job in these matters. Maybe some TV newsrooms have effective investigative reporting, but not very many. These stories are often not very "visual" and sometimes they can't be told in 20 seconds, so the TV folks won't touch them.
Another thing is the emergency response function of the local media. W2R may want to chime in, but when I went to help out some family members after Katrina they were highly dependent on local (pooled) radio newsrooms and newspapers to get out lots of essential info for many weeks. Where food was available, where (and what) trash could be disposed of, etc. We didn't find the TV news to be as useful, and the print media explored and reported on a lot of outrages that electronic media couldn't be bothered with.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet I've been wondering how many other people realize that you can reset this counter on your internet browser by deleting the cookies. You can get all the NYT articles you want for free, because when you hit the 10/month limit you can just delete your cookies (or open a different browser app) and start over.

You don't even have to do that. Just go up into the bar with the URL and erase everything from the ? on and refresh and you can read the article...

I would actually pay for the New York Times if the price was even somewhat reasonable.

[Chuckanut]

I don't think online newspapers are over priced. The comparison with the cost of a service such as Netflix is invalid. They are a different business offering a different product. Good journalism is important. It keeps us focused on important things like the deficeit, ongoing military activity, reforming medical care and a host of other important local matters. It helps us avoid being distracted by manufactured 'controversies' such as the one over Olympic uniforms.

Good journalists veryify their information, verify their sources and often verify the person who verifies the sources. If one likes being distracted by the Christians being tossed to the lions at the colloseum, then one does not need good journalism. But, if one wants to be informed and capabable of making a good decision, I think paying for a newspaper (online or paper) is worth it.

[marko]

If you're a high-net-worth investor with TR Price, you get WSJ online for free. I'd guess other houses would have a similar offer.

As far as NYT, Boston Globe and others: online or in print it seems to be more and more of 'yesterdays news today'.

NYT claims the 'best journalists in the world!'. Really? I guess if you say it enough times you might believe it.

[Hamlet]

Online newspapers are overpriced compared to their brick and mortar business, from the consumer's standpoint.

They are desperately trying to move online without destroying their legacy business. It's not working out well.

Frankly, the whole model is going to need to change dramatically. Most of the content that a typical newspaper prints is just AP articles. In an internet world, that no longer has value to a consumer that gets it for free online. Classified ads have been replaced by Craigslist, which is a better system by far. The only value a newspaper now provides is the unique local content that it creates itself.

It's not clear that the new generation is going to be willing to pay enough to make it profitable to generate that content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I don't think online newspapers are over priced. The comparison with the cost of a service such as Netflix is invalid. They are a different business offering a different product. Good journalism is important. It keeps us focused on important things like the deficeit, ongoing military activity, reforming medical care and a host of other important local matters. It helps us avoid being distracted by manufactured 'controversies' such as the one over Olympic uniforms. Good journalists veryify their information, verify their sources and often verify the person who verifies the sources. If one likes being distracted by the Christians being tossed to the lions at the colloseum, then one does not need good journalism. But, if one wants to be informed and capabable of making a good decision, I think paying for a newspaper (online or paper) is worth it.

[Bestwifeever]

Not only are newspapers free online, the number of free online college courses is growing:

Quote:

The University of Washington is joining a massive, free experiment in online education that adherents believe has the potential to revolutionize the way college classes are taught, open up access to some of the university's most sought-after courses, and drive down the cost of a degree....The startup has been offering free courses for about a year, beginning with courses from Stanford University. This spring, it entered into agreements with Princeton, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania, to expand offerings to 43 courses.

Madness! Courses available here: Coursera

[steelyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Not only are newspapers free online, the number of free online college courses is growing: Madness! Courses available here: Coursera

Illinois is doing this as well, but the courses are not-for-credit. There will be a charge for employers who want to connect with students who have completed specific courses, and a fee for students who want a certificate of completion. State budgets are squeezing universities

[Nords]

Sounds like the Khan Academy and the MIT lectures, which our daughter has been using for 3-4 years...