Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Would you be willing to pay for access to newspapers' online content?

47 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

No, there are always free ones if searched in google.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

certainly not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No.

Shouldn't this be a poll or more in line with a discussion question, like "What would induce you to pay for access to a newspaper's online content?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

no

0 ( +0 / -0 )

N+O= NO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, and I don't quite see how the revenue model is going to work for the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Murdoch and his competitors have to make sure ALL papers (and Japan Today) charge for online content. Then they have to negotiate with Google or Yahoo not to post stories from their papers or AP, Reuters, etc. Once that happens, the only free source of news online will be blogs, which are mainly shriekfests anyway, and then we may be forced to pay for online content.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. Someone has to pay for it. I would pay provided it's reasonable in cost. Online content is free largely since print subsrcibers are subsidising it and ad revenues are often not sufficient. That will end someday and I wish to have newspapers and magazines survive. But I don't want to pay the print costs just to get online access which is often the case.

I favor having the option of micropayments for one-off articles or subscriptions for continuous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with the first poster.

Not only online, but some printed papers are also free. In London, The Standard is now free and you can get it at many tube stations. For Hong Kong news, I gave up on The South China Morning Post when they started charging. It's competitor, oddly enough, also called The Standard, is absolutely free.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

certainly not .There is no way . if they don't want people to read for free then they shouldn't be on line in the first place .They get enough money from adverts, don't they ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NO. Why should I? I paid JCOM for the internet service and cancelled my HT subscription to cut spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. let the advertisements pay for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only for a quality site like JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember when they came out with cable TV Long long ago. They said since you were paying for content, that it would be FREE from advertisements. That lasted about two weeks, if I recall correctly.

Since there will ALWAYS be advertisements, there is no reason to PAY for content. NONE.

Are You Listening Rupert?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would only pay for a newspaper's online content if my subscription came with paper delivery. Noting like reading a paper over a cup of joe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. Charging for it like the new york Times plans on doing, will just promote making it obsolete. And yes...ECHO ECHO........advertisements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if it is good, why not? Already pay for the paper version......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes depending on the quality of the articles and information. These newspaper companies cannot provide their services for free and still expect to remain in business. Consumers shouldn't expect to receive anything free unless a gift. I'm certain that if you are a grocery store owner, you wouldn't give away a box of candy for free. It's the same thing here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm certain that if you are a grocery store owner, you wouldn't give away a box of candy for free. It's the same thing here.

It's not the same thing at all. Newspapers are ad supported and always have been. The grocery store owner only makes money off product sales.

I subscribe to a newspaper and several magazines but I am not going to pay for online content for anything else. If these outlets start to charge then I will just go elsewhere for my news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, but people should pay to make comments.

And if it is a pay version, I expect a reduction in fees for every ad I see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No in general but it depends on the paper in question. Some piece of garbage like the New York Slimes?? No way!

The only good thing about the New York Times may be the book reviews and best seller list.

In fact, I might be tempted to pay for the Washington Examiner, but I would rather just get the paper if possible.

Online content for papers and books is just not as efficient as the real deal as far as perusal goes.

But the New York Times is as dead as Dave Letterman.

No thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never, Internet is plenty of media news, if one want charge then no more with that. That happen with Encyclopedia Britannica, then i turn to Wikipedia...

LuisAxt.tk

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lets see i havent bought a cd in about 5 years and i only go to see a movie at the theatre if it is 3d at this point....yeah definitely not gunna pay for newspapers online - what a joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Online ads nose-dived along with the economy. Online ads don't support much money anymore. Plus, they realize that many people now websurf with technology that makes the ads vanish from sight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Definitely not. Unless it is very cheap, like a 1$ or 2$ a month. I seams that low price, high quality web services are quiet common.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, content isn't worth it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No way, Why would I pay for something I get for free. (That and Junnama's comment is right on the money.)

Any internet savy business would have its content paid for through advertising.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely not!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems a way for only online ads to support a business nowadays is for each webpage be comprised of 90% ads and 10% content, one webpage per paragraph, websurfers to keep clicking on the "next" link to continue reading, seeing yet more ads along the way. (Not for me though; my tech don't let me see any ads - sorry JT.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The goofy posts in here are priceless, far more entertaining than the news content.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No...

I remember back in the late 90's when I used to enjoy watching free CNN online video reports until they started charging for it. Then I switched to watching MSNBC for my US news and have been doing so for more than a decade.

Like most people have mentioned, content should be payed for by advertising just like TV. I'm assuming that the Internet will just replace TV, but the way we enjoy it won't change all that much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You asked this a while ago. My answer is still no chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I used to pay... I don't think I'll go back there. The quality of articles became so low, the technical interface were always bugged, then they started adding pop-up ads to paying edition, blogs of readers and comments were included in the news and becamemore voluminous than what the paid journalist wrote. Then during elections they started spamming me on the email I used to subscribe (and they had said they were keeping privacy etc), that was the last drop.

OK, if people work they should get a salary, but at that point the bloggers are working more than journalists. So it's fairer if that comes from ads and affiliates. I think readers don't wish to give more money to established papers than to individual blogs/pages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I believe advertisers should pay.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, not paying for online news. You can't wrap fish in electronic newspaper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope. Never have, never will! There are just too many sites providing news for free and commenting on articles. Besides, news travels instantly over the internet these days. Paying for "yesterdays news" as with a newspaper, is just not worth it IMO. It is so 20th century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, if all conditions are met:

completely ad-free

anonymous micro-payment

quality journalism, with clear preference of good research and background information over speed, no copy-paste of other news agency's texts

for the web site itself: no scripts, cookies or whatever, especially from 3rd parties, if complete blockage of those would result in loss of usability

If you guys at JT think you could charge for what you offer now: no chance!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would not be opposed to small charges. Not sure I like the subscription idea, though, as I have about 25 straight news sources (not including specific stuff like tech, art and the environment) in my Google Reader queue and that would get expensive fast. I think we will eventually develop a model like the one in Mother of Storms and other scifi stories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YES. Though itd be good to have like a list and description of who or what type of news media it is labelled at. Id probably pay for here. I hate expecting people to do work on a dime. I am willing to pay. Of course the price would have to be right and not ridiculous-like Japan had it's prices set at a few years ago. It maintained the economy in a way, but is not right for now, and a little snobby.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember when they came out with cable TV Long long ago. They said since you were paying for content

at one time, people said they would never pay for tv, and then cable tv came along, and people paid.

people do pay for news: think about bloomberg. in any case, if people aren't willing to pay for it, it probably isn't valuable in the first place. perhaps it always has been, but news in general has become a form of cheap entertainment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

second time this thread has popped up, is this site testing the waters for future charging? If so i ll just get the news from somewhere else, why pay when you can get it for free?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HELL NO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why pay for it, when you've already got Google News for free? Can't compete on that business model, unless you're looking for specifically biased news you prefer to read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never say never but at this point in time NO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Definatel wouldnt pay, no way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites