Comments on: Boston Globe/Boston.com To Charge Online Readers

By: joefrohlinger (Joe Frohlinger)

joefrohlinger (Joe Frohlinger) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:52:22 +0000

Twitter Comment

8-0 series lead drops to 8-4 & fans demand Terry and Theo go? Chill Bosox fans, you've had it pretty good recently! [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: RickB

RickB — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:11:53 +0000

I agree. The WSJ provides valuable insight into the business world.
The Globe has declined in it’s writing quality and content markedly.
I agree with Zippo.
I canceled my life long daily delivery subscription to the Globe when the price was raised.
I’d pay for the Globe on line if it provided meaningful content beyond sports, with great writers, (Gammons, Montville, come back!)
rb

By: Classless

Classless — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 05:15:21 +0000

Brilliant business decision: Charge money for a dying industry in a world where news is free in infinite amounts. Yeah, goodnight Boston Globe.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:07:51 +0000

The Boston Herald tried this several year’s ago, they charged something like $9.00 per 3-moths to read their columnist only, the rest of the site was free. If you paid they gave you a free T-Shirt, it didn’t last very long and soon enough they dropped all fees and went back to a free site.

By: Angry Old Bastard

Angry Old Bastard — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:52:13 +0000

put me down for a NO…other than Mike Reiss, I really don’t think I’ll be missing much. If some situation should arise that I really, really, really want to read it, I’ll just buy the paper…..no biggie to me,wouldn’t miss it at all…..and by the way, didn’t the Herald use to charge for certain columns?

By: Terry C

Terry C — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:23:37 +0000

I don`t see me paying for someones opinion, to say that it is inevitable could be true but the content has to be an improvement over what we currently have, to just say O.K. now it costs money without offering more seems like a bad idea.
My Dad resisted Cable T.V. (“why would I pay for something I already get for free”) until they took the sox and celtics.

By: QuintanaFan

QuintanaFan — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:37:33 +0000

A few of the knee-jerk folks will be up in arms about this, but, really, the Globe (and the Herald) have no choice. They have to do SOMETHING because the business is losing money at a rapid rate. They’re giving the product away for free, so their options are limited.

I think they need to look at pricing. Will they go the iTunes model and have like .25 per article or something like that? Will they go to a flat subscription rate ($10/month, $100/year?)? I think a lot of that will be important.

I also think the website is a key factor in this. So much of this stuff is important and the emphasis on breaking news and timely events make me think they have to charge for that, too. I mean, 20 years ago if you weren’t at the Red Sox game or watched it on TV, you wouldn’t know what happened until the paper the next day. Now, thanks to ESPN and the internet, the gamer is an afterthought.

I don’t think many people will pay to read a pedestrian gamer, but they might pay to read takes on the Patriots by Mike Reiss, etc. The Globe might have to include that content to justify people paying for it. Because folks can get a gamer from the Herald, ESPN or anywhere else via AP. Why pay for it? But the columnists and the unique voices are the carrot they need to dangle.

As for the site, I think you’d need to keep doing business as usual and just include a “subscription required” line next to it. It’s not like the Brockton Enterprise or Worcester Telegram and you can just pass on their work. The Globe is a big gorilla to leave out of the updates.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:09:31 +0000

The first thing is to make sure enough people value your content enough to pay for it before going ahead with the paid-for model. The political sway that the Globe takes pleases some and angers others. Obviously the Globe has to fill their offering with original content; no one is going to pay for AP stuff that they can get elsewhere for free. So what’s that leave in the new paid-for offering? All the liberal columnists and editors, and the sports guys–which are split roughly 80% hated and 20% loved. In the end, I applaud the Globe for moving this way. The loud-mouthed columnists will be shouting to a smaller audience of people who think like they do anyway. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to make anyone happy…except the people who despise The Globe in the first place. The old ‘Tree that falls in a forest’ metaphor.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:48:41 +0000

The Wall Street Journal is an elite, one-of-a-kind publication that financial professionals cannot do without. That’s why they can successfully charge for content.

The Globe is just another, run-of-the-mill rag…there’s nothing uniquely special to be found in their news, sports or opinion.

There is a multitude of online alternatives to what the Globe has to offer, and they’re almost all freely accessible.

This is just a recipe for continued failure…merely the latest in a long line of imprudent business decisions by the Globe.

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:20:55 +0000

I would pay a modest fee per month to read the Globe on line. I would pay a modest fee per month to read this web site on line. Modest = $4-$5 per month. As far as your mornings, I would pay for opinions and commentary on prior nights or upcoming games more readily than paying for links to pther stories or web sites.