Quote:
Originally Posted by SensualPoet
The value of a newspaper lies in its reputation and that only is maintained if the newspaper is seen and heard on a daily basis. Placing the majority of content behind a pay-wall degrades that reputation over time by being seen less.
|
A reputation can't be maintained if the newspaper in question goes out of business. And paywalls are rarely 100%, so the site can typically still be accessed enough to get indexed by search engines and news aggregators.
And you need to pay salaries with cash, not "reputation."
Also, papers and magazines like the WSJ, Financial Times, the Economist have used paywall for years without degradation to their reputations. NY Times plans to add one later this year as well; I doubt that change alone will alter its reputation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SensualPoet
But one principle ought to guide the bean counters: less is not necessarily more. Tread with caution and charge where you can add value to the consumer experience without hacking away at the foundations of the press itself.
|
Unless, of course, you have fewer readers with a more desirable demographic profile, whose subscription fees raise more revenue for the newspaper than online ads alone.