Comments on: How paywalls are evolving A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: dbsmith1 Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:20:08 +0000 Oops, just noticed that the $127 was for The Economist. I get the hard-copy of The Economist and the electronic version is included for free. Just extended the subscription for $69 for another 18 months. That’s a good deal.

By: dbsmith1 Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:18:08 +0000 Both the FT and WSJ have raised their online subscription rates by 30% over the past year. At least for me (do they think I’m wealthy?!).

I’ve dropped both and won’t be going back.

For the FT subscriber who claims to have gotten a rate of $127 — well done. FT wanted to charge me over $200 for electronic access and that’s not including some content!

By: fresnodan Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:52:41 +0000 195$ a year is an interesting price. Does it assume you will read all editions of the NYT cover to cover every day?
Reading online saves the newspaper paper, distribution, and printing costs.
There are a couple of bloggers that I give 100$ a year to (which has more to do with political agreement and supporting their voice)

But if one were to look at the “total” of articles the times publishes, and the percent I look at, I would say it would be hard pressed to say I even view a fraction of 1%. So it strikes me that a fair price for a casual reader like me would be on the order of 10$ a year. And considering my income level, undoubtedly I am more valuable to the newspapers advertizers than most readers.

By: MrRFox Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:49:52 +0000 I just paid $127 for a year of The Economist, online. Fair enough. TE and FT and WSJ all have overlapping ownerships. I’d have paid twice that (maybe more) for a pass to read all three of them – bet others would too. Should be easy enough for them to work out how to split the dough. By providing much more value for money my guess is the increase in subscribers would more than make up for the lower average cost compared to individual subscriptions to each of them – how many people do that?

If a group like that could be formed, that would be really bad news for ‘lone wolves’, like TR. (Like that would be any loss?) Just really a matter of time, isn’t it?

By: GRRR Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:52:48 +0000 “Essentially harvesting revenue from a loyal long-term audience.”

This is the wrong way of seeing things, in my opinion.

We (Americans) have 100% phone number portability. We have leverage to lower our subscription bills with our ISP and cellular services, because there are multiple vendors for these services.

I have permanently lowered both my cellular/data and ISP rates by speaking with customer service. I have even leveraged my print subscription prices by calling / emailing customer service into giving me their lowest, unpublished rate.

Loyalty is something companies should pony up for, not extract blood from, because in the long term, such actions will bite back, hard.

By: DrFuManchu Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:48:33 +0000 It seems that Mather can’t see the forest for the trees here: segregated content can’t be linked to or passed around. Once that happens, the relevance of the publication is likely to drop massively.

A big example of this is the Times. No-one links to the Times any more. Guardian and Telegraph have picked up a lot of social media love as a result.